Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad

[wli@movementarian.org]

* Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
>> Simpler and more compact, but not as strict: in particular, a value of
>> 0 or 1 is identified as bad by that 64-bit test, but not by the 32-bit.

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yes, indeed you are right - the 64-bit test does not allow the KERNPG_TABLE 
> bits to go zero.
> Those are the present, rw, accessed and dirty bits. Do they really matter 
> that much? If a toplevel entry goes !present or readonly, we notice that 
> _fast_, without any checks. If it goes !access or !dirty - does that matter?
> These checks are done all the time, and even a single instruction can count. 
> The bits that are checked are enough to notice random memory corruption.
> ( albeit these days with large RAM sizes pagetable corruption is quite rare 
>   and only happens if it's specifically corrupting the pagetable - and then 
>   it's not just a single bit. Most of the memory corruption goes into the 
>   pagecache. )

The RW bit needs to be allowed to become read-only for hugetlb COW.
Changing it over to the 32-bit method is a bugfix by that token.


-- wli

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>