lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 12/24] x86/mm: Modify ptep_set_wrprotect and pmdp_set_wrprotect for _PAGE_DIRTY_SW
From
Date
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 13:46 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 01:39 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> >
> > With the updated ptep_set_wrprotect() below, I did MADV_WILLNEED to a shadow
> > stack of 8 MB, then 10,000 fork()'s, but could not prove it is more or less
> > efficient than the other.  So can we say this is probably fine in terms of
> > efficiency?
> Well, the first fork() will do all the hard work.  I don't think
> subsequent fork()s will be affected.

Are you talking about a recent commit:

    1b2de5d0 mm/cow: don't bother write protecting already write-protected pages

With that, subsequent fork()s will not do all the hard work.
However, I have not done that for shadow stack PTEs (do we want to do that?).
I think the additional benefit for shadow stack is small?

>
> Did you do something to ensure this code was being run?
>
> I would guess that a loop like this:
>
> for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
> mprotect(addr, len, PROT_READ);
> mprotect(addr, len, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE);
> }
>
> might show it better.

Would mprotect() do copy_one_pte()?  Otherwise it will not go through
ptep_set_wrprotect()?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-14 23:14    [W:0.082 / U:1.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site