[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d3a0a870-dccf-186c-e079-96b8309721cd@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 18:30:59 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/23] mm/shmem: Handle uffd-wp special pte in page
fault handler
> +/*
> + * This is actually a page-missing access, but with uffd-wp special pte
> + * installed. It means this pte was wr-protected before being unmapped.
> + */
> +static vm_fault_t pte_marker_handle_uffd_wp(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Just in case there're leftover special ptes even after the region
> + * got unregistered - we can simply clear them. We can also do that
> + * proactively when e.g. when we do UFFDIO_UNREGISTER upon some uffd-wp
> + * ranges, but it should be more efficient to be done lazily here.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(!userfaultfd_wp(vmf->vma) || vma_is_anonymous(vmf->vma)))
> + return pte_marker_clear(vmf);
What would happen if we do a unregister followed by a register? IMHO we
should start with a clean uffd-wp slate then. Your comment makes ma
assume that we could receive stale WP events, which would be wrong?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists