Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1536959337.12990.27.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/24] x86/mm: Modify ptep_set_wrprotect and
 pmdp_set_wrprotect for _PAGE_DIRTY_SW
From:   Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, keescook@chromium.org,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com
Date:   Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:08:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <8d9ce0e9-8fc7-8c68-4aa9-9aed9ee949f2@linux.intel.com>
References: <1535660494.28258.36.camel@intel.com>
         <CAG48ez0yOuDhqxB779aO3Kss3gQ3cZTJL1VphDXQm+_M9jFPvQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <1535662366.28781.6.camel@intel.com>
         <CAG48ez0mkr95_TbLQnDGuGUd6G+eJVLZ-fEjDkwA6dSrm+9tLw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAG48ez3S3+DzAyo_SnoUW1GO0Cpd_x0A83MOx2p_MkogoAatLQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180831095300.GF24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <1535726032.32537.0.camel@intel.com>
         <f5a36e32-7c5f-91fe-9e98-fb44867fda11@linux.intel.com>
         <1535730524.501.13.camel@intel.com>
         <6d31bd30-6d5b-bbde-1e97-1d8255eff76d@linux.intel.com>
         <20180831162920.GQ24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <1536957543.12990.9.camel@intel.com>
         <8d9ce0e9-8fc7-8c68-4aa9-9aed9ee949f2@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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()?