[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zik3eEEFxwGAIjgn@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:46:48 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Shivansh Vij <shivanshvij@...look.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm64/mm: Add uffd write-protect support
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:10:17PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> @@ -1248,6 +1302,7 @@ static inline pmd_t pmdp_establish(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> * Encode and decode a swap entry:
> * bits 0-1: present (must be zero)
> * bits 2: remember PG_anon_exclusive
> + * bit 3: remember uffd-wp state
> * bits 4-53: swap offset
> * bit 54: PTE_PROT_NONE (overlays PTE_UXN) (must be zero)
> * bits 55-59: swap type
Ah, I did not realise we need to free up bit 3 from the swap pte as
well. Though maybe patch 1 is fine as is but for the record, it would be
good to justify the decision to go with PTE_UXN. For this patch:
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists