[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220930152742.55ee9c25b89ba483ec211be8@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:27:42 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] mm/ksm: fix KSM COW breaking with userfaultfd-wp
via FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:19:28 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> Let's stop breaking COW via a fake write fault and let's use
> FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE instead. This avoids any wrong side effects of the fake
> write fault, such as mapping the PTE writable and marking the pte
> dirty/softdirty.
>
> Also, this fixes KSM interaction with userfaultfd-wp: when we have a KSM
> page that's write-protected by userfaultfd, break_ksm()->handle_mm_fault()
> will fail with VM_FAULT_SIGBUS and will simpy return in break_ksm() with 0.
> The warning in dmesg indicates this wrong handling:
We're at -rc7. I'd prefer to avoid merging larger patchsets at this
time.
Is there some minimal fix for 6.0 and -stable? Or is the problem
non-serious enough to only fix it in 6.1 and later?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists