[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200430211308.74a994dc@oasis.local.home>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:13:08 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86/mm: Sync all vmalloc mappings before
text_poke()
[ Joerg, sending again this time not just to you. (hit reply to sender
and not reply to all). Feel free to resend what you wrote before to this ]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:14:34 +0200
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de> wrote:
> And alloc_percpu() calls down into pcpu_alloc(), which allocates new
> percpu chunks using vmalloc() on x86. And there we are again in the
> vmalloc area.
So after a vmalloc() is made, should the page tables be synced?
This is a rather subtle bug, and I don't think it should be the caller of
percpu_alloc() that needs to call vmalloc_sync_mappings().
What's your suggestion for a fix?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists