[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
On 09/14/2018 02:08 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> 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?

BTW, I wasn't particularly concerned about shadow stacks. Plain old
memory is affected by this change too. Right?

>> 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?

You're right. mprotect() doesn't use this path.

But, that reminds me, can you take a quick look at change_pte_range()
and double-check that it's not affected by this issue?

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-14 23:35    [W:0.057 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site