linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct hmm_vma

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: <20190814073854.GA27249@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:38:54 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct
 hmm_vma_walk

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 06:36:33PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Section alignment constraints somewhat save us here. The only example
> I can think of a PMD not containing a uniform pgmap association for
> each pte is the case when the pgmap overlaps normal dram, i.e. shares
> the same 'struct memory_section' for a given span. Otherwise, distinct
> pgmaps arrange to manage their own exclusive sections (and now
> subsections as of v5.3). Otherwise the implementation could not
> guarantee different mapping lifetimes.
> 
> That said, this seems to want a better mechanism to determine "pfn is
> ZONE_DEVICE".

So I guess this patch is fine for now, and once you provide a better
mechanism we can switch over to it?