[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ee4a597-d7cb-f387-5613-f51b17262745@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 20:03:41 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <shy828301@...il.com>,
<willy@...radead.org>, <zokeefe@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm/huge_memory: access vm_page_prot with READ_ONCE
in remove_migration_pmd
On 2022/6/23 11:14, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:06:13AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> vma->vm_page_prot is read lockless from the rmap_walk, it may be updated
>> concurrently. Using READ_ONCE to prevent the risk of reading intermediate
>> values.
>
> Have you checked all other vm_page_prot reads that they hold mmap_lock?
I took a glance when I made this patch.
>
> I think the right fix would be to provide a helper to read vm_page_prot
> which does READ_ONCE() and use it everywhere. This seems more sustainable.
>
This patch is inspired from the below commit
6d2329f8872f ("mm: vm_page_prot: update with WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE")
It changed all the places that need to use READ_ONCE. But remove_migration_pmd
is missed due to it's introduced later. It looks fine to add a helper to read
vm_page_prot which does READ_ONCE() but READ_ONCE is unneeded while under the
mmap_lock, so might it be a little overkill to add a helper because the helper
is used iff mmap_lock is not held?
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists