[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg5dtEx63dm4fy-DkrX4Hw0htLyzPPbOhbYYxt4ESReDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:28:33 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: David Wang <00107082@....com>, catalin.marinas@....com, lance.yang@...ux.dev,
b-padhi@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Polensky <japo@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.18-rc6
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 06:08, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
<david@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> To not lose too much time, I just pushed the following patch to
>
> https://github.com/davidhildenbrand/linux.git zerotags
Hmm. Why isn't the fix for this simply this (intentionally
whitespace-damaged - don't apply mindlessly) one-liner:
--- a/include/linux/highmem.h
+++ b/include/linux/highmem.h
@@ -253,5 +253,6 @@ static inline void
clear_highpage_kasan_tagged(struct page *page)
static inline void tag_clear_highpage(struct page *page)
{
+ clear_highpage(page);
}
because even when the *real* tag_clear_highpage() triggers, it falls down to
if (!system_supports_mte()) {
clear_highpage(page);
return;
}
so basically I think the fundamental bug here is that our fallback
tag_clear_highpage() was just buggy and didn't do what it was supposed
to do.
That one-liner would seem to be a lot simpler and more robust than
making this configuration-dependent. Just make the fallback do the
right thing - blammo, problem solved.
Am I missing something?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists