# Re: \[RFC PATCH v3 12/24\] x86/mm: Modify ptep\_set\_wrprotect and pmdp\_set\_wrprotect for \_PAGE\_DIRTY\_SW

- From: Yu-cheng Yu \<hidden\>
- Date: 2018-09-14 21:13:39 
- List: linux-doc
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-doc/2018/09/5381289
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-doc/2018/08/5367691/t.md

```text
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 13:46 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 01:39 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > 
> > With the updated ptep_set_wrprotect() below, I did MADV_WILLNEED to a shadow
> > stack of 8 MB, then 10,000 fork()'s, but could not prove it is more or less
> > efficient than the other.  So can we say this is probably fine in terms of
> > efficiency?
> Well, the first fork() will do all the hard work.  I don't think
> subsequent fork()s will be affected.

Are you talking about a recent commit:

    1b2de5d0 mm/cow: don't bother write protecting already write-protected pages

With that, subsequent fork()s will not do all the hard work.
However, I have not done that for shadow stack PTEs (do we want to do that?).
I think the additional benefit for shadow stack is small?

> 
> Did you do something to ensure this code was being run?
> 
> I would guess that a loop like this:
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
> 		mprotect(addr, len, PROT_READ);
> 		mprotect(addr, len, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE);
> 	}
> 
> might show it better.

Would mprotect() do copy_one_pte()?  Otherwise it will not go through
ptep_set_wrprotect()?

```