From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: add missing gup_must_unshare() check to gup_huge_pgd()
Date: Sun, 7 May 2023 18:00:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230507180053.7d47cd3b58c73f3b6fc567e0@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2dbc82e9-30dc-5187-cdd6-166fa53213c4@redhat.com>
On Mon, 8 May 2023 02:45:12 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08.05.23 02:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 May 2023 15:05:25 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> All other instances of gup_huge_pXd() perform the unshare check, so update
> >> the PGD-specific function to do so as well.
> >>
> >> While checking pgd_write() might seem unusual, this function already
> >> performs such a check via pgd_access_permitted() so this is in line with
> >> the existing implementation.
> >
> > Rationale seems strange. "Other sites do it so this should also". Why
> > is this a desirable change? Maybe the "other instances" shouldn't be
> > performing this check either?
>
> This change makes unshare handling across all GUP-fast variants consistent,
> which is desirable as GUP-fast is complicated enough already even when
> consistent :)
Thanks, I added the below to the changelog:
David said:
: This change makes unshare handling across all GUP-fast variants
: consistent, which is desirable as GUP-fast is complicated enough
: already even when consistent.
:
: This function was the only one I seemed to have missed (or left out and
: forgot why -- maybe because it's really dead code for now). The COW
: selftest would identify the problem, so far there was no report.
: Either the selftest wasn't run on corresponding architectures with that
: hugetlb size, or that code is still dead code and unused by
: architectures.
:
: the original commit(s) that added unsharing explain why we care about
: these checks:
:
: a7f226604170acd6 ("mm/gup: trigger FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE when R/O-pinning a possibly shared anonymous page")
: 84209e87c6963f92 ("mm/gup: reliable R/O long-term pinning in COW mappings")
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-08 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-06 14:05 Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-05-08 0:30 ` Andrew Morton
2023-05-08 0:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-05-08 1:00 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230507180053.7d47cd3b58c73f3b6fc567e0@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox