Hello Sergei,
Thanks for your reply.
On 03/05/2017 05:38 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 3/5/2017 6:24 AM, Jiwei Sun wrote:
>
>> If asid_cache(cpu) overflows, there may be two tasks with the same
>> asid. It is a risk that the two different tasks may have the same
>> address space.
>>
>> A process will update its asid to newer version only when switch_mm()
>> is called and matches the following condition:
>> if ((cpu_context(cpu, next) ^ asid_cache(cpu))
>> & asid_version_mask(cpu))
>> get_new_mmu_context(next, cpu);
>> If asid_cache(cpu) overflows, cpu_context(cpu,next) and asid_cache(cpu)
>> will be reset to asid_first_version(cpu), and start a new cycle. It
>> can result in two tasks that have the same ASID in the process list.
>>
>> For example, in CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_R2, task named A's asid on CPU1 is
>> 0x100, and has been sleeping and been not scheduled. After a long period
>> of time, another running task named B's asid on CPU1 is 0xffffffff, and
>> asid cached in the CPU1 is 0xffffffff too, next task named C is forked,
>> when schedule from B to C on CPU1, asid_cache(cpu) will overflow, so C's
>> asid on CPU1 will be 0x100 according to get_new_mmu_context(). A's asid
>> is the same as C, if now A is rescheduled on CPU1, A's asid is not able
>> to renew according to 'if' clause, and the local TLB entry can't be
>> flushed too, A's address space will be the same as C.
>>
>> If asid_cache(cpu) overflows, all of user space task's asid on this CPU
>> are able to set a invalid value (such as 0), it will avoid the risk.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiwei Sun <jiwei.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 9 ++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> index ddd57ad..1f60efc 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> @@ -108,8 +108,15 @@ static inline void enter_lazy_tlb(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *tsk)
>> #else
>> local_flush_tlb_all(); /* start new asid cycle */
>> #endif
>> - if (!asid) /* fix version if needed */
>> + if (!asid) { /* fix version if needed */
>> + struct task_struct *p;
>> +
>> + for_each_process(p) {
>> + if ((p->mm))
>
> Why double parens?
At the beginning, the code was written as following
if ((p->mm) && (p->mm != mm))
cpu_context(cpu, p->mm) = 0;
Because cpu_context(cpu,mm) will be changed to asid_first_version(cpu) after 'for' loop,
and in order to improve the efficiency of the loop, I deleted "&& (p->mm != mm)",
but I forgot to delete the redundant parentheses.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Jiwei
>
>> + cpu_context(cpu, p->mm) = 0;
>> + }
>> asid = asid_first_version(cpu);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> cpu_context(cpu, mm) = asid_cache(cpu) = asid;
>
> MBR, Sergei
>
