On 06/14/2016 09:47 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > +void fix_pte_leak(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
>> > +{
> Here there should be a call to smp_mb__after_atomic() to synchronize with
> switch_mm. I submitted a similar patch, which is still pending (hint).
>
>> > + if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids) {
>> > + trace_tlb_flush(TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
>> > + flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, addr,
>> > + addr + PAGE_SIZE);
>> > + mb();
>> > + set_pte(ptep, __pte(0));
>> > + }
>> > +}
Shouldn't that barrier be incorporated in the TLB flush code itself and
not every single caller (like this code is)?
It is insane to require individual TLB flushers to be concerned with the
barriers.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>