[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <530deddf-705e-045d-f7c6-521531dced71@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:51:24 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <tglx@...utronix.de>, <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
<jpoimboe@...hat.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix potential pte_unmap_unlock pte error
Hi:
On 2021/1/11 1:14, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 03:01:18AM -0500, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> Since commit 42e4089c7890 ("x86/speculation/l1tf: Disallow non privileged
>> high MMIO PROT_NONE mappings"), when the first pfn modify is not allowed,
>> we would break the loop with pte unchanged. Then the wrong pte - 1 would
>> be passed to pte_unmap_unlock.
>
> Thanks.
>
> While the fix is correct, I'm not sure if it actually is a real bug. Is there
> any architecture that would do something else than unlocking the underlying
> page? If it's just the underlying page then it should be always the same
> page, so no bug.
>
It's just a theoretical issue via code inspection.
> That said of course the change is the right thing for main line, but probably doesn't
> need to be backported.
>
So it should not be backported. Should I resend a patch or Andrew would kindly do this?
> -Andi
> .
>
Many thanks for review and reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists