[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191118130249.2ec96ffdf9a1aeb4f3e820dd@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:02:49 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Hellström (VMware)
<thomas_os@...pmail.org>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Fix a huge pud insertion race during faulting
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:58:04 +0100 Thomas Hellström (VMware) <thomas_os@...pmail.org> wrote:
> >> Is a -stable backport warranted?
> > I believe it is.
>
> Note that this was caught during a code audit rather than a real
> experienced problem. It looks to me like the only implementation that
> currently creates huge pud pagetable entries is dev_dax_huge_fault()
> which doesn't appear to care much about private (COW) mappings or
> write-tracking which is, I believe, a prerequisite for create_huge_pud()
> falling back on thread 1, but not in thread 2.
>
> This means (assuming that's intentional) that a stable backport
> shouldn't be needed.
>
> For the WIP huge page support for graphics memory we'll be allowing both
> COW mappings and write-tracking, though, but that's still some time away.
>
> In any case, I think this patch needs -rc testing to catch potential
> pud_devmap issues before submitted to stable.
OK, thanks, I'll queue it for 5.5-rc1 with a -stable tag. Hopefully
that way it will get a bit of exposure before the stable trees pick it
up. Maybe this is optimistic..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists