On 07/10/2018 04:23 PM, Nadav Amit wrote: > at 6:44 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: >>> + /* >>> + * On platforms before CET, other threads could race to >>> + * create a RO and _PAGE_DIRTY_HW PMD again. However, >>> + * on CET platforms, this is safe without a TLB flush. >>> + */ >> >> If I didn't work for Intel, I'd wonder what the heck CET is and what the >> heck it has to do with _PAGE_DIRTY_HW. I think we need a better comment >> than this. How about: >> >> Some processors can _start_ a write, but end up seeing >> a read-only PTE by the time they get to getting the >> Dirty bit. In this case, they will set the Dirty bit, >> leaving a read-only, Dirty PTE which looks like a Shadow >> Stack PTE. >> >> However, this behavior has been improved and will *not* occur on >> processors supporting Shadow Stacks. Without this guarantee, a >> transition to a non-present PTE and flush the TLB would be >> needed. > > Interesting. Does that regard the knights landing bug or something more > general? It's more general. > Will the write succeed or trigger a page-fault in this case? It will trigger a page fault. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
