Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/vmalloc: Sync unmappings in vunmap_page_range()

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:14 AM Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@xxxxxxx>
>
> On x86-32 with PTI enabled, parts of the kernel page-tables
> are not shared between processes. This can cause mappings in
> the vmalloc/ioremap area to persist in some page-tables
> after the regions is unmapped and released.
>
> When the region is re-used the processes with the old
> mappings do not fault in the new mappings but still access
> the old ones.
>
> This causes undefined behavior, in reality often data
> corruption, kernel oopses and panics and even spontaneous
> reboots.
>
> Fix this problem by activly syncing unmaps in the
> vmalloc/ioremap area to all page-tables in the system.
>
> References: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118689
> Fixes: 5d72b4fba40ef ('x86, mm: support huge I/O mapping capability I/F')
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 4fa8d84599b0..322b11a374fd 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@ static void vunmap_page_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>                         continue;
>                 vunmap_p4d_range(pgd, addr, next);
>         } while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
> +
> +       vmalloc_sync_all();
>  }

I'm confused.  Shouldn't the code in _vm_unmap_aliases handle this?
As it stands, won't your patch hurt performance on x86_64?  If x86_32
is a special snowflake here, maybe flush_tlb_kernel_range() should
handle this?

Even if your patch is correct, a comment would be nice