From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:02:37 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation Message-ID: <20181031100237.GN744@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <40cd77ce-f234-3213-f3cb-0c3137c5e201@gmail.com> <20181030152641.GE8177@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <0A7AFB50-9ADE-4E12-B541-EC7839223B65@amacapital.net> <20181030175814.GB10491@bombadil.infradead.org> <20181030182841.GE7343@cisco> <20181030192021.GC10491@bombadil.infradead.org> <9edbdf8b-b5fb-5a82-43b4-b639f5ec8484@gmail.com> <20181030213557.GE10491@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Igor Stoppa , Tycho Andersen , Kees Cook , Mimi Zohar , Dave Chinner , James Morris , Michal Hocko , Kernel Hardening , linux-integrity , LSM List , Igor Stoppa , Dave Hansen , Jonathan Corbet , Laura Abbott , Randy Dunlap , Mike Rapoport , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , LKML , Thomas Gleixner List-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:41:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > To clarify some of this thread, I think that the fact that rare_write > uses an mm_struct and alias mappings under the hood should be > completely invisible to users of the API. No one should ever be > handed a writable pointer to rare_write memory (except perhaps during > bootup or when initializing a large complex data structure that will > be rare_write but isn't yet, e.g. the policy db). Being able to use pointers would make it far easier to do atomics and other things though. > For example, there could easily be architectures where having a > writable alias is problematic. Mostly we'd just have to be careful of cache aliases, alignment should be able to sort that I think. > If you have multiple pools and one mm_struct per pool, you'll need a > way to find the mm_struct from a given allocation. Or keep track of it externally. For example by context. If you modify page-tables you pick the page-table pool, if you modify selinux state, you pick the selinux pool. > Regardless of how the mm_structs are set up, changing rare_write > memory to normal memory or vice versa will require a global TLB flush > (all ASIDs and global pages) on all CPUs, so having extra mm_structs > doesn't seem to buy much. The way I understand it, the point is that if you stick page-tables and selinux state in different pools, a stray write in one will never affect the other.