From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752825AbdKMWq3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:46:29 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:32433 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751376AbdKMWq2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:46:28 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,389,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="1885956" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/11] mm, x86: Add support for eXclusive Page Frame Ownership (XPFO) From: Dave Hansen To: Tycho Andersen References: <20170907173609.22696-1-tycho@docker.com> <20170907173609.22696-4-tycho@docker.com> <34454a32-72c2-c62e-546c-1837e05327e1@intel.com> <20170920223452.vam3egenc533rcta@smitten> <97475308-1f3d-ea91-5647-39231f3b40e5@intel.com> <20170921000901.v7zo4g5edhqqfabm@docker> <20171110010907.qfkqhrbtdkt5y3hy@smitten> <7237ae6d-f8aa-085e-c144-9ed5583ec06b@intel.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Marco Benatto , Juerg Haefliger , x86@kernel.org Message-ID: <2aa64bf6-fead-08cc-f4fe-bd353008ca59@intel.com> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:46:25 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7237ae6d-f8aa-085e-c144-9ed5583ec06b@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/13/2017 02:20 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 11/09/2017 05:09 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote: >> which I guess is from the additional flags in grow_dev_page() somewhere down >> the stack. Anyway... it seems this is a kernel allocation that's using >> MIGRATE_MOVABLE, so perhaps we need some more fine tuned heuristic than just >> all MOVABLE allocations are un-mapped via xpfo, and all the others are mapped. >> >> Do you have any ideas? > > It still has to do a kmap() or kmap_atomic() to be able to access it. I > thought you hooked into that. Why isn't that path getting hit for these? Oh, this looks to be accessing data mapped by a buffer_head. It (rudely) accesses data via: void set_bh_page(struct buffer_head *bh, ... bh->b_data = page_address(page) + offset;