[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220305020021.qmwg5dkham4lyz6v@revolver>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 02:00:39 +0000
From: Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] mempolicy: mbind_range() set_policy() after
vma_merge()
* Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> [220304 17:48]:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, Liam Howlett wrote:
> > * Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> [220304 13:49]:
> > > * Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> [220303 23:36]:
> >
> > I just thought of something after my initial email
> >
> > How does the ->set_policy() requirement on tmpfs play out for the
> > mpol_equal() check earlier in that for loop?
>
> It took me a while to page all this back in (and remind myself of
> what is case 8) to answer that question!
>
> The answer is that the mpol_equal() check at the top of the loop is on
> an existing, unmodified vma; so it's right to assume that any necessary
> set_policy() has already been done.
>
> Whereas the mpol_equal() check being removed in this patch, is being
> done on a vma which may have just been extended to cover a greater range:
> so although the relevant set_policy() may have already been done on a part
> of its range, there is now another part which needs the policy applied.
Doesn't the policy get checked during vma_merge()? Specifically the
mpol_equal(policy, vma_policy(next)) check?
>
> > > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
>
> Thank you, your review is very welcome (but mainly I Cc'ed to alert
> you to how I'm probably stepping on your toes a little here - sorry).
Yes, I figured as much and I really appreciate it. I'm quite confident
I translated this bug to my patch set.
Thanks,
Liam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists