linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mm/huge_memory: vmf_insert_folio_*() and vmf_insert_pfn

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250611160804.89bc8b8cb570101e51b522e4@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:08:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, Alistair Popple
 <apopple@...dia.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka
 <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan
 <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Zi Yan
 <ziy@...dia.com>, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Nico Pache
 <npache@...hat.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Dev Jain
 <dev.jain@....com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Oscar Salvador
 <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mm/huge_memory: vmf_insert_folio_*() and
 vmf_insert_pfn_pud() fixes

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:06:51 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:

> While working on improving vm_normal_page() and friends, I stumbled
> over this issues: refcounted "normal" pages must not be marked
> using pmd_special() / pud_special().

Why is this?

>
> ...
>
> I spent too much time trying to get the ndctl tests mentioned by Dan
> running (.config tweaks, memmap= setup, ... ), without getting them to
> pass even without these patches. Some SKIP, some FAIL, some sometimes
> suddenly SKIP on first invocation, ... instructions unclear or the tests
> are shaky. This is how far I got:

I won't include this in the [0/N] - it doesn't seem helpful for future
readers of the patchset.

I'll give the patchset a run in mm-new, but it feels like some more
baking is needed?

The [1/N] has cc:stable but there's nothing in there to explain this
decision.  How does the issues affect userspace?