[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7016f30f-65dd-b1a1-a44a-fb7af689959b@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:03:54 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Wupeng Ma <mawupeng1@...wei.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, bp@...e.de,
toshi.kani@...com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
syzbot+5f488e922d047d8f00cc@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] x86/mm/pat: Clear VM_PAT if copy_p4d_range failed
On 2/16/23 18:56, Wupeng Ma wrote:
> dup_mm
> dup_mmap
> copy_page_range
> copy_p4d_range
> copy_pud_range
> copy_pmd_range
> pmd_alloc
> __pmd_alloc
> pmd_alloc_one
> page = alloc_pages(gfp, 0);
> if (!page)
> return NULL;
> mmput
> exit_mmap
> unmap_vmas
> unmap_single_vma
> untrack_pfn
> follow_phys
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
What's the point of that warning in the first place? I can certainly
imagine follow_phys() failing for sparse mappings, for instance. Is
there some requirement that VM_PFNMAP can't be sparse?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists