linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/hmm: allow snapshot of the special zero page

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: <6b124c6d-0fac-2a34-0542-7516de939b9e@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:08:28 -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 2/4] mm/hmm: allow snapshot of the special zero page


On 9/12/19 1:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:28:27PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>> Allow hmm_range_fault() to return success (0) when the CPU pagetable
>> entry points to the special shared zero page.
>> The caller can then handle the zero page by possibly clearing device
>> private memory instead of DMAing a zero page.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
>> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>> ---
>>   mm/hmm.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
>> index 06041d4399ff..7217912bef13 100644
>> --- a/mm/hmm.c
>> +++ b/mm/hmm.c
>> @@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pte(struct mm_walk *walk, unsigned long addr,
>>   			return -EBUSY;
>>   	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL) && pte_special(pte)) {
>>   		*pfn = range->values[HMM_PFN_SPECIAL];
>> -		return -EFAULT;
>> +		return is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(pte)) ? 0 : -EFAULT;
> 
> Any chance to just use a normal if here:
> 
> 		if (!is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(pte)))
> 			return -EFAULT;
> 		return 0;
> 

Sure, no problem.