[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220930181415.31c2ee66166d4e1c6c0eac64@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:14:15 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+2b9b4f0895be09a6dec3@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in change_protection
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:03:53 -0400 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> When PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP not configured, it's still possible to reach pte
> marker code and trigger an warning. Add a few CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP
> ifdefs to make sure the code won't be reached when not compiled in.
Thanks.
Is 679d10331910180 ("mm: introduce PTE_MARKER swap entry") the
appropriate Fixes: target?
Should we backport to -stable?
The inlined ifdefs are unpleasing. Let's go with this for now, but
some future cleanup would be nice.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists