[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <76F6D5F2-6723-441B-BD63-52628731F1FF@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:38:07 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, ak@...ux.intel.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...e.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, harish.srinivasappa@...el.com,
lukasz.odzioba@...el.com, grzegorz.andrejczuk@...el.com,
lukasz.daniluk@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Linux VM workaround for Knights Landing A/D leak
Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com> wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm,
> unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
> {
> - return ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, ptep);
> + pte_t pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, ptep);
> +
> + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_PTE_LEAK))
> + fix_pte_leak(mm, addr, ptep);
> + return pte;
> }
I missed it on the previous iteration: ptep_get_and_clear already calls
fix_pte_leak when needed. So do you need to call it again here?
Thanks,
Nadav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists