[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908281750410.1938@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:51:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 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 Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.
See Peter's series to rework the ftrace code patching ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists