[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:01:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, Peter
Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas
Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Borislav
Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Fei Li
<fei1.li@...el.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Wupeng Ma
<mawupeng1@...wei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mm/pat: fix VM_PAT handling in COW mappings
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:20:06 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> Reported-by: Wupeng Ma <mawupeng1@...wei.com>
> >> Closes: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240227122814.3781907-1-mawupeng1@huawei.com
> >> Fixes: b1a86e15dc03 ("x86, pat: remove the dependency on 'vm_pgoff' in track/untrack pfn vma routines")
> >> Fixes: 5899329b1910 ("x86: PAT: implement track/untrack of pfnmap regions for x86 - v3")
> >
> > These are really old. Should we backport this?
>
> I was asking that question myself.
>
> With the reproducer, the worst thing that happens on most systems is the
> warning. On !RAM and with PAT, there could be memory leaks and other
> surprises.
>
> Likely, we should just backport it to stable. Should not be too hard to
> backport to stable kernels I guess/hope.
OK, thanks, I added the cc:stable tag.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists