Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:20:53 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <>
To: Andy Lutomirski <>, Alexander Graf <>,
 Nadav Amit <>
Cc: Marius Hillenbrand <>, kvm list <>,
 LKML <>,
 Kernel Hardening <>,
 Linux-MM <>, Alexander Graf <>,
 David Woodhouse <>,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
 Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM

On 6/13/19 9:13 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> It might make sense to use it for kmap_atomic() for debug purposes, as
>> it ensures that other users can no longer access the same mapping
>> through the linear map. However, it does come at quite a big cost, as we
>> need to shoot down the TLB of all other threads in the system. So I'm
>> not sure it's of general value?
> What I meant was that kmap_atomic() could use mm-local memory so that
> it doesn't need to do a global shootdown.  But I guess it's not
> actually used for real on 64-bit, so this is mostly moot.  Are you
> planning to support mm-local on 32-bit?

Do we *do* global shootdowns on kmap_atomic()s on 32-bit?  I thought we
used entirely per-cpu addresses, so a stale entry from another CPU can
get loaded in the TLB speculatively but it won't ever actually get used.
 I think it goes:

kunmap_atomic() ->
__kunmap_atomic() ->
kpte_clear_flush() ->
__flush_tlb_one_kernel() ->
__flush_tlb_one_user() ->
__native_flush_tlb_one_user() ->

The per-cpu address calculation is visible in kmap_atomic_prot():

        idx = type + KM_TYPE_NR*smp_processor_id();

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.