From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8D86B003D for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:56:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:56:06 -0500 From: wli@movementarian.org Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad Message-ID: <20090205205606.GG10229@movementarian.org> References: <498B2EBC.60700@goop.org> <20090205184355.GF5661@elte.hu> <498B35F9.601@goop.org> <20090205191017.GF20470@elte.hu> <20090205194932.GB3129@elte.hu> <20090205195817.GF10229@movementarian.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, wli@movementarian.org wrote: >> 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. On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 08:14:42PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > If there's a bugfix to be made there, of course I'm in favour: > but how come we've never seen such a bug? hugetlb COW has been > around for a year or two by now, hasn't it? We can tell from the code that a write-protected pte mapping of a 1GB hugetlb page would be flagged as bad. It must not be called on ptes mapping hugetlb pages if they're not getting flagged. -- 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: email@kvack.org