Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752203AbdHNRB2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:01:28 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com ([209.85.214.51]:35748 "EHLO mail-it0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752133AbdHNRB1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:01:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:01:25 -0600 From: Tycho Andersen To: Mark Rutland Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Marco Benatto , Juerg Haefliger , Juerg Haefliger Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: Add __flush_tlb_one() Message-ID: <20170814170125.ledrnrik3km66y33@smitten> References: <20170809200755.11234-1-tycho@docker.com> <20170809200755.11234-5-tycho@docker.com> <20170812112603.GB16374@remoulade> <20170814163536.6njceqc3dip5lrlu@smitten> <20170814165047.GB23428@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170814165047.GB23428@leverpostej> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1481 Lines: 42 On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:35:36AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > > > +static inline void __flush_tlb_one(unsigned long addr) > > > > +{ > > > > + dsb(ishst); > > > > + __tlbi(vaae1is, addr >> 12); > > > > + dsb(ish); > > > > + isb(); > > > > +} > > > > > > Is this going to be called by generic code? > > > > Yes, it's called in mm/xpfo.c:xpfo_kunmap. > > > > > It would be nice if we could drop 'kernel' into the name, to make it clear this > > > is intended to affect the kernel mappings, which have different maintenance > > > requirements to user mappings. > > > It's named __flush_tlb_one after the x86 (and a few other arches) > > function of the same name. I can change it to flush_tlb_kernel_page, > > but then we'll need some x86-specific code to map the name as well. > > > > Maybe since it's called from generic code that's warranted though? > > I'll change the implementation for now, let me know what you want to > > do about the name. > > I think it would be preferable to do so, to align with > flush_tlb_kernel_range(), which is an existing generic interface. > > That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range() > directly? I don't think so, I'll change the generic code to that and drop this patch. Thanks! Tycho