lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:19:11 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm,migration: During fork(), wait for migration to end if migration PTE is encountered On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 02:18:21AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 08:52:03AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > I already explained this doesn't happend and said "I'm sorry". > > Oops I must have overlooked it sorry! I just seen the trace quoted in > the comment of the patch and that at least would need correction > before it can be pushed in mainline, or it creates huge confusion to > see a reverse trace for CPU A for an already tricky piece of code. > > > But considering maintainance, it's not necessary to copy migration ptes > > and we don't have to keep a fundamental risks of migration circus. > > > > So, I don't say "we don't need this patch." > > split_huge_page also has the same requirement and there is no bug to > fix, so I don't see why to make special changes for just migrate.c > when we still have to list_add_tail for split_huge_page. > > Furthermore this patch isn't fixing anything in any case and it looks > a noop to me. If the order ever gets inverted, and process2 ptes are > scanned before process1 ptes in the rmap_walk, sure the > copy-page-tables will break and stop until the process1 rmap_walk will > complete, but that is not enough! You have to repeat the rmap_walk of > process1 if the order ever gets inverted and this isn't happening in ^^^^^^^2 > the patch so I don't see how it could make any difference even just > for migrate.c (obviously not for split_huge_page). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists