lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/9] x86: skip check for spurious faults for non-present faults
On 04/15/2014 07:15 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> If a fault on a kernel address is due to a non-present page, then it
> cannot be the result of stale TLB entry from a protection change (RO
> to RW or NX to X). Thus the pagetable walk in spurious_fault() can be
> skipped.

Erk... this code is screaming WTF to me. The x86 architecture is such
that the CPU is responsible for avoiding these faults.

<dig> <dig> <dig>

5b727a3b0158a129827c21ce3bfb0ba997e8ddd0

x86: ignore spurious faults

When changing a kernel page from RO->RW, it's OK to leave stale TLB
entries around, since doing a global flush is expensive and they
pose no security problem. They can, however, generate a spurious
fault, which we should catch and simply return from (which will
have the side-effect of reloading the TLB to the current PTE).

This can occur when running under Xen, because it frequently changes
kernel pages from RW->RO->RW to implement Xen's pagetable semantics.
It could also occur when using CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, since it
avoids doing a global TLB flush after changing page permissions.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xensource.com>
Cc: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

Again WTF?

Are we chasing hardware errata here? Or did someone go off and *assume*
that the x86 hardware architecture work a certain way? Or is there
something way more subtle going on?

I guess next step is mailing list archaeology...

Does anyone still have contacts with Jeremy, and if so, could they poke
him perhaps?

-hpa



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-15 21:21    [W:0.133 / U:1.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site