[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZJxkEVWMAXnz8Y9D@x1n>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:47:13 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
mhocko@...e.com, josef@...icpanda.com, jack@...e.cz,
ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
michel@...pinasse.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, jglisse@...gle.com,
vbabka@...e.cz, minchan@...gle.com, dave@...olabs.net,
punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com, hdanton@...a.com,
apopple@...dia.com, ying.huang@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: handle userfaults under VMA lock
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:22:24AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Ack. I was not sure if the ctx->mm would always be the same as vmf->mm.
Feel free to look at the entrance of handle_userfault(), where there's:
struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx;
...
ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
...
BUG_ON(ctx->mm != mm);
...
So I think we should be safe. Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists