[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141121142301.564f7eb7@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:23:01 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:06:41 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> static noinline int vmalloc_fault(unsigned long address)
> {
> pgd_t *pgd_dst;
> pgdval_t pgd_entry;
> unsigned index = pgd_index(address);
>
> if (index < KERNEL_PGD_BOUNDARY)
> return -1;
>
> pgd_entry = init_mm.pgd[index].pgd;
> if (!pgd_entry)
> return -1;
Should we at least check to see if it is present?
if (!(pgd_entry & 1))
return -1;
?
-- Steve
>
> pgd_dst = __va(PAGE_MASK & read_cr3());
> pgd_dst += index;
>
> if (pgd_dst->pgd)
> return -1;
>
> ACCESS_ONCE(pgd_dst->pgd) = pgd_entry;
> return 0;
> }
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(vmalloc_fault);
>
> Hmm? Does anybody see anything fundamentally wrong with this?
>
> Linus
--
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