[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 11/27] x86/mm: Modify ptep_set_wrprotect and pmdp_set_wrprotect for _PAGE_DIRTY_SW
On 07/10/2018 04:23 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> at 6:44 PM, Dave Hansen <> wrote:
>> On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> + * On platforms before CET, other threads could race to
>>> + * create a RO and _PAGE_DIRTY_HW PMD again. However,
>>> + * on CET platforms, this is safe without a TLB flush.
>>> + */
>> If I didn't work for Intel, I'd wonder what the heck CET is and what the
>> heck it has to do with _PAGE_DIRTY_HW. I think we need a better comment
>> than this. How about:
>> Some processors can _start_ a write, but end up seeing
>> a read-only PTE by the time they get to getting the
>> Dirty bit. In this case, they will set the Dirty bit,
>> leaving a read-only, Dirty PTE which looks like a Shadow
>> Stack PTE.
>> However, this behavior has been improved and will *not* occur on
>> processors supporting Shadow Stacks. Without this guarantee, a
>> transition to a non-present PTE and flush the TLB would be
>> needed.
> Interesting. Does that regard the knights landing bug or something more
> general?

It's more general.

> Will the write succeed or trigger a page-fault in this case?

It will trigger a page fault.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-11 01:53    [W:0.092 / U:2.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site