[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zg9wNKTu4JxGXrHs@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 04:29:56 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] s390/uv: convert gmap_make_secure() to work on
folios
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 06:36:39PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> + /* We might get PTE-mapped large folios; split them first. */
> + if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> + rc = -E2BIG;
We agree to this point. I just turned this into -EINVAL.
>
> + if (rc == -E2BIG) {
> + /*
> + * Splitting might fail with -EBUSY due to unexpected folio
> + * references, just like make_folio_secure(). So handle it
> + * ahead of time without the PTL being held.
> + */
> + folio_lock(folio);
> + rc = split_folio(folio);
> + folio_unlock(folio);
> + folio_put(folio);
> + }
Ummm ... if split_folio() succeeds, aren't we going to return 0 from
this function, which will be interpreted as make_folio_secure() having
succeeded?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists