[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231009221922.GC3952@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 19:19:22 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/gup: explicitly define and check internal GUP
flags, disallow FOLL_TOUCH
On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 05:00:03PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Rather than open-coding a list of internal GUP flags in
> is_valid_gup_args(), define which ones are internal.
>
> In addition, we were not explicitly checking to see if the user passed in
> FOLL_TOUCH somehow, this patch fixes that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
> ---
> mm/gup.c | 5 ++---
> mm/internal.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Does gup_test still work? It uses FOLL_TOUCH?
Hmm. I guess it was broken for a while anyhow:
/* Just the flags we need, copied from mm.h: */
#define FOLL_WRITE 0x01 /* check pte is writable */
#define FOLL_TOUCH 0x02 /* mark page accessed */
Aside from that this seems OK
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists