[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b877ef5-9dd5-97ed-dd1a-36dbf5d02547@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mm: Clear vmf->pte after pte_unmap_same()
returns
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Peter Xu wrote:
> pte_unmap_same() will always unmap the pte pointer. After the unmap, vmf->pte
> will not be valid any more, we should clear it.
>
> It was safe only because no one is accessing vmf->pte after pte_unmap_same()
> returns, since the only caller of pte_unmap_same() (so far) is do_swap_page(),
> where vmf->pte will in most cases be overwritten very soon.
>
> Directly pass in vmf into pte_unmap_same() and then we can also avoid the long
> parameter list too, which should be a nice cleanup.
>
> Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
This one seems fine, thanks.
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 25fc46e87214..7b095f07c4ef 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2724,19 +2724,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(apply_to_existing_page_range);
> * proceeding (but do_wp_page is only called after already making such a check;
> * and do_anonymous_page can safely check later on).
> */
> -static inline int pte_unmap_same(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd,
> - pte_t *page_table, pte_t orig_pte)
> +static inline int pte_unmap_same(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> {
> int same = 1;
> #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPTION)
> if (sizeof(pte_t) > sizeof(unsigned long)) {
> - spinlock_t *ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, pmd);
> + spinlock_t *ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
> spin_lock(ptl);
> - same = pte_same(*page_table, orig_pte);
> + same = pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte);
> spin_unlock(ptl);
> }
> #endif
> - pte_unmap(page_table);
> + pte_unmap(vmf->pte);
> + vmf->pte = NULL;
> return same;
> }
>
> @@ -3487,7 +3487,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> vm_fault_t ret = 0;
> void *shadow = NULL;
>
> - if (!pte_unmap_same(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))
> + if (!pte_unmap_same(vmf))
> goto out;
>
> entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
> --
> 2.31.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists