public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate bound tables
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:27:46 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <530B8112.5080400@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1393162071-23995-3-git-send-email-qiaowei.ren@intel.com>

On 02/23/2014 05:27 AM, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
> +static bool allocate_bt(unsigned long bd_entry)
> +{
> +	unsigned long bt_size = 1UL << (MPX_L2_BITS+MPX_L2_SHIFT);
> +	unsigned long bt_addr, old_val = 0;
> +
> +	bt_addr = sys_mmap_pgoff(0, bt_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> +			MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_POPULATE, -1, 0);
> +	if (bt_addr == -1) {
> +		pr_err("L2 Node Allocation Failed at L1 addr %lx\n",
> +				bd_entry);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +	bt_addr = (bt_addr & MPX_L2_NODE_ADDR_MASK) | 0x01;
> +
> +	user_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(&old_val,
> +			(long __user *)bd_entry, 0, bt_addr);
> +	if (old_val)
> +		vm_munmap(bt_addr & MPX_L2_NODE_ADDR_MASK, bt_size);
> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +bool do_mpx_bt_fault(struct xsave_struct *xsave_buf)
> +{
> +	unsigned long status;
> +	unsigned long bd_entry, bd_base;
> +	unsigned long bd_size = 1UL << (MPX_L1_BITS+MPX_L1_SHIFT);
> +
> +	bd_base = xsave_buf->bndcsr.cfg_reg_u & MPX_BNDCFG_ADDR_MASK;
> +	status = xsave_buf->bndcsr.status_reg;
> +
> +	bd_entry = status & MPX_BNDSTA_ADDR_MASK;
> +	if ((bd_entry >= bd_base) && (bd_entry < bd_base + bd_size))
> +		return allocate_bt(bd_entry);
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

Can you talk a little bit about what the design is here?  Why does the
kernel have to do the allocation of the virtual address space?  Does it
really need to MAP_POPULATE?  bt_size looks like 4MB, and that's an
awful lot of memory to eat up at once.  Shouldn't we just let the kernel
demand-fault this like everything else?


  reply	other threads:[~2014-02-24 17:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-23 13:27 [PATCH v5 0/3] Intel MPX support Qiaowei Ren
2014-02-23 13:27 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] x86, mpx: add documentation on Intel MPX Qiaowei Ren
2014-02-26 19:17   ` Dave Hansen
2014-02-26 20:58     ` Dave Hansen
2014-02-26 21:44     ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-02-27  2:03       ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-02-26 21:19   ` Dave Hansen
2014-02-27  1:58     ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-02-23 13:27 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate bound tables Qiaowei Ren
2014-02-24 17:27   ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2014-02-24 17:51     ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-02-25 13:34       ` Ren, Qiaowei
2014-02-23 13:27 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] x86, mpx: extend siginfo structure to include bound violation information Qiaowei Ren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=530B8112.5080400@intel.com \
    --to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=qiaowei.ren@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox