linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: thp: Fix the update_mmu_cache() last argument passing in mm/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]

Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:40:37 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: thp: Fix the update_mmu_cache() last argument
 passing in mm/huge_memory.c

On Tue 11-09-12 17:47:15, Will Deacon wrote:
> From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> 
> The update_mmu_cache() takes a pointer (to pte_t by default) as the last
> argument but the huge_memory.c passes a pmd_t value. The patch changes
> the argument to the pmd_t * pointer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> ---
>  mm/huge_memory.c |    6 +++---
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 57c4b93..4aa6d02 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ int do_huge_pmd_wp_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		entry = pmd_mkyoung(orig_pmd);
>  		entry = maybe_pmd_mkwrite(pmd_mkdirty(entry), vma);
>  		if (pmdp_set_access_flags(vma, haddr, pmd, entry,  1))
> -			update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
> +			update_mmu_cache(vma, address, pmd);

I am not sure but shouldn't we use the new entry rather than the given
pmd?

>  		ret |= VM_FAULT_WRITE;
>  		goto out_unlock;
>  	}
> @@ -986,7 +986,7 @@ int do_huge_pmd_wp_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		pmdp_clear_flush_notify(vma, haddr, pmd);
>  		page_add_new_anon_rmap(new_page, vma, haddr);
>  		set_pmd_at(mm, haddr, pmd, entry);
> -		update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
> +		update_mmu_cache(vma, address, pmd);
>  		page_remove_rmap(page);
>  		put_page(page);
>  		ret |= VM_FAULT_WRITE;
> @@ -1989,7 +1989,7 @@ static void collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
>  	BUG_ON(!pmd_none(*pmd));
>  	page_add_new_anon_rmap(new_page, vma, address);
>  	set_pmd_at(mm, address, pmd, _pmd);
> -	update_mmu_cache(vma, address, _pmd);
> +	update_mmu_cache(vma, address, pmd);
>  	prepare_pmd_huge_pte(pgtable, mm);
>  	spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
>  
> -- 
> 1.7.4.1
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/