[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55bb026c-5d54-6ebf-608f-3f376fbec4e5@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:46:33 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86/mm/pti: Handle unaligned address gracefully in
pti_clone_pagetable()
On 8/28/19 7:24 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
>
> pti_clone_pmds() assumes that the supplied address is either:
>
> - properly PUD/PMD aligned
> or
> - the address is actually mapped which means that independent
> of the mapping level (PUD/PMD/PTE) the next higher mapping
> exist.
>
> If that's not the case the unaligned address can be incremented by PUD or
> PMD size wrongly. All callers supply mapped and/or aligned addresses, but
> for robustness sake, it's better to handle that case proper and to emit a
> warning.
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Song, did you ever root-cause the performance regression? I thought
there were still some mysteries there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists