On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 03:44:32PM -0700, Dave Hansen 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 And Changelog, the provided one is abysmal. > 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. I'm still struggling. I think I get the first paragraph, but then what? -- 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
