[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19b49f1f-9d2d-6cf1-e764-ca4219b22ab9@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:37:23 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/uffd: Fix pte marker when fork() without fork
event
On 16.12.22 17:24, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:57:33PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> I'm more concerned about backports, when one backports #1 but not #2. In
>> theory, patch #2 fixes patch #1, because that introduced IMHO a real
>> regression -- a possible memory corruption when discarding a hwpoison
>> marker. Warnings are not nice but at least indicate that something needs a
>> second look.
>
> Note that backporting patch 1 only is exactly what I wanted to do here - it
> means his/her tree should not have the swapin error pte markers at all.
>
> The swapin error pte marker change only existed for a few days in Linus's
> tree, so no one should be backporting patch 2.
Right, and these patches are supposed to land in 6.2 as well. Makes
sense to me then.
Especially, the other parts in patch #2 are worth being in a separate patch.
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists