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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190531063645.4697-1-namit@vmware.com> <20190531063645.4697-12-namit@vmware.com>
 <20190531105758.GO2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <82791CFA-3748-4881-9F01-53F677108FC3@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <82791CFA-3748-4881-9F01-53F677108FC3@vmware.com>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 21:20:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1LxU_swf30Ndj=vjZLeSKg83Oi4f2Kd+wSUygPXA0cGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/12] x86/mm/tlb: Use async and inline messages
 for flushing
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:29 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> [ +Jann Horn ]
>
> > On May 31, 2019, at 3:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrot=
e:
> >
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:36:44PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >> When we flush userspace mappings, we can defer the TLB flushes, as lon=
g
> >> the following conditions are met:
> >>
> >> 1. No tables are freed, since otherwise speculative page walks might
> >>   cause machine-checks.
> >>
> >> 2. No one would access userspace before flush takes place. Specificall=
y,
> >>   NMI handlers and kprobes would avoid accessing userspace.
[...]
> A #MC might be caused. I tried to avoid it by not allowing freeing of
> page-tables in such way. Did I miss something else? Some interaction with
> MTRR changes? I=E2=80=99ll think about it some more, but I don=E2=80=99t =
see how.

I don't really know much about this topic, but here's a random comment
since you cc'ed me: If the physical memory range was freed and
reallocated, could you end up with speculatively executed cached
memory reads from I/O memory? (And if so, would that be bad?)