[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5JHY2zyK4k8aBtX@x1n>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 15:21:55 -0500
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ives van Hoorne <ives@...esandbox.io>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/userfaultfd: enable writenotify while
userfaultfd-wp is enabled for a VMA
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 03:06:06PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 05:44:35PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > I'll wait for some more (+retest) before I resend tomorrow.
>
> One more thing just to double check:
>
> It's 6a56ccbcf6c6 ("mm/autonuma: use can_change_(pte|pmd)_writable() to
> replace savedwrite", 2022-11-30) that just started to break uffd-wp on
> numa, am I right?
>
> With the old code, pte_modify() will persist uffd-wp bit, afaict, and we
> used to do savedwrite for numa hints. That all look correct to me until
> the savedwrite removal patchset with/without vm_page_prot changes.
>
> If that's the case, we'd better also mention that in the commit message and
> has another Fixes: for that one to be clear.
Nah, never mind. I think the savedwrite will not guarantee pte write
protected just like the migration path. The commit message is correct.
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists