[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZfCrkL-Aieer2EAg@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:22:56 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
Wupeng Ma <mawupeng1@...wei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/mm/pat: fix VM_PAT handling in COW mappings
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 07:11:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> PAT handling won't do the right thing in COW mappings: the first PTE
> (or, in fact, all PTEs) can be replaced during write faults to point at
> anon folios. Reliably recovering the correct PFN and cachemode using
> follow_phys() from PTEs will not work in COW mappings.
I guess the first question is: Why do we want to support COW mappings
of VM_PAT areas? What breaks if we just disallow it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists