[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] mm: Don't scrub pages while holding heap lock in alloc_heap_pages()
>>> On 05.09.17 at 16:54, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/05/2017 10:42 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>>> @@ -974,13 +972,39 @@ static struct page_info *alloc_heap_pages( >>>> * guest can control its own visibility of/through the cache. >>>> */ >>>> flush_page_to_ram(page_to_mfn(&pg[i]), !(memflags & > MEMF_no_icache_flush)); >>>> - >>>> - if ( !(memflags & MEMF_no_scrub) ) >>>> - check_one_page(&pg[i]); >>>> } >>>> >>>> spin_unlock(&heap_lock); >>>> >>>> + if ( first_dirty != INVALID_DIRTY_IDX || >>>> + (scrub_debug && !(memflags & MEMF_no_scrub)) ) >>> Why does scrub_debug matter here?. >>> >>>> + { >>>> + for ( i = 0; i < (1U << order); i++ ) >>>> + { >>>> + if ( test_bit(_PGC_need_scrub, &pg[i].count_info) ) >>>> + { >>>> + if ( !(memflags & MEMF_no_scrub) ) >>>> + scrub_one_page(&pg[i]); >>>> + >>>> + dirty_cnt++; >>>> + >>>> + spin_lock(&heap_lock); >>>> + pg[i].count_info &= ~PGC_need_scrub; >>>> + spin_unlock(&heap_lock); >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + if ( !(memflags & MEMF_no_scrub) ) >>>> + check_one_page(&pg[i]); >>> Wouldn't this better be "else if", as checking a page just scrubbed >>> doesn't look very useful? >> For both of these questions --- we don't want to miss a poisoned page. >> For example, if a page was poisoned but for some reason is not marked >> PGC_need_scrub. >> >> Of course, we risk a false positive if a guest wrote the page with the >> same pattern. > > Just in case I wasn't clear --- I will remove scrub_debug test and add > 'else' for this reason. Even though it's a debug-only feature I think we > shouldn't do this. Perhaps I'm dense, but it sounds to me like you agree to do a change you think you shouldn't do. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |