linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] mm: replace FAULT_FLAG_SIZE with parameter to huge

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <86962573-01b7-4ce7-182e-7a77f183cf0e@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:07:24 -0700
From:   Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: replace FAULT_FLAG_SIZE with parameter to huge_fault

On 02/03/2017 05:00 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/03/2017 03:56 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> [auto build test ERROR on mmotm/master]
>>>> [cannot apply to linus/master linux/master v4.10-rc6 next-20170203]
>>>> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
>>>
>>> This one is a bit odd. I just pulled mmotm tree master branch and built
>>> with the attached .config and it passed for me (and I don't see this
>>> commit in the master branch). I also built linux-next with this patch on
>>> top and it also passes with attached .config. Looking at the err log
>>> below it seems the code has a mix of partial from before and after the
>>> patch. I'm rather confused about it....
>>
>> This is a false positive. It tried to build it against latest mainline
>> instead of linux-next.
> 
> On second look it seems I ended up with a duplicate
> ext4_huge_dax_fault after "git am" when I apply this on top of
> next-20170202.  The following fixes it up for me and tests fine:

I think it's missing this patch from Ross
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=148581319303697&w=2

> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/file.c b/fs/ext4/file.c
> index f8f4f6d068e5..e8ab46efc4f9 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> @@ -276,27 +276,6 @@ static int ext4_dax_huge_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>         return result;
>  }
> 
> -static int
> -ext4_dax_huge_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> -{
> -       int result;
> -       struct inode *inode = file_inode(vmf->vma->vm_file);
> -       struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
> -       bool write = vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
> -
> -       if (write) {
> -               sb_start_pagefault(sb);
> -               file_update_time(vmf->vma->vm_file);
> -       }
> -       down_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem);
> -       result = dax_iomap_fault(vmf, &ext4_iomap_ops);
> -       up_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem);
> -       if (write)
> -               sb_end_pagefault(sb);
> -
> -       return result;
> -}
> -
>  static int ext4_dax_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  {
>         return ext4_dax_huge_fault(vmf, PE_SIZE_PTE);
>