[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e2ecc1a7-0d2f-5957-e6cb-b3c86c085d80@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:02:12 -0700
From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/hmm: hmm_range_fault() NULL pointer bug
On 8/24/19 3:37 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:17:52PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>> Although hmm_range_fault() calls find_vma() to make sure that a vma exists
>> before calling walk_page_range(), hmm_vma_walk_hole() can still be called
>> with walk->vma == NULL if the start and end address are not contained
>> within the vma range.
>
> Should we convert to walk_vma_range instead? Or keep walk_page_range
> but drop searching the vma ourselves?
>
> Except for that the patch looks good to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
I think keeping the call to walk_page_range() makes sense.
Jason is hoping to be able to snapshot a range with & without vmas
and have the pfns[] filled with empty/valid entries as appropriate.
I plan to repost my patch changing hmm_range_fault() to use
walk.test_walk which will remove the call to find_vma().
Jason had some concerns about testing it so that's why I have
been working on some HMM self tests before resending it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists