[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C2910936-FDCF-4ECF-B014-D985284B225A@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:21:00 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mprotect: Fix soft-dirty check in
can_change_pte_writable()
On Jul 22, 2022, at 12:08 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>> +static inline bool vma_soft_dirty_enabled(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * NOTE: we must check this before VM_SOFTDIRTY on soft-dirty
>> + * enablements, because when without soft-dirty being compiled in,
>> + * VM_SOFTDIRTY is defined as 0x0, then !(vm_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY)
>> + * will be constantly true.
>> + */
>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Soft-dirty is kind of special: its tracking is enabled when the
>> + * vma flags not set.
>> + */
>> + return !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY);
>> +}
>
> That will come in handy in other patches I'm cooking.
clear_refs_write() also comes to mind as well (for consistency; I see no
correctness or performance issue).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists