[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvUR6XksBMJ9x0qo@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:27:53 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kalra, Ashish" <Ashish.Kalra@....com>
Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"slp@...hat.com" <slp@...hat.com>,
"pgonda@...gle.com" <pgonda@...gle.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com"
<srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com" <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
"tobin@....com" <tobin@....com>,
"Roth, Michael" <Michael.Roth@....com>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"kirill@...temov.name" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"marcorr@...gle.com" <marcorr@...gle.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"alpergun@...gle.com" <alpergun@...gle.com>,
"dgilbert@...hat.com" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 09/49] x86/fault: Add support to handle the RMP
fault for user address
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:00:57PM +0000, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
> This is more like a sanity check and returning 1 will cause the fault
> handler to return and ignore the fault for current #PF case. If the
> page got unmapped, the fault will not happen again and there will be
> no retry, so the fault in this case is being ignored.
I know what will happen. I'm asking you to make this explicit in the
code because this separate define documents the situation.
One more return type != 0 won't hurt.
> Ok, so you are suggesting that we remove this check and simply keep
> this function wrapping around __split_huge_pmd(). This becomes a
> generic utility function.
Yes, it is in generic code so it better be generic function. That's why
I'm questioning the vendor-specific check there.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists