From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: mark uffd_wp regardless of VM_WRITE flag
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:00:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <68B04C0D-F8CE-4C95-9032-CF703436DC99@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BDBC90F4-22E1-48CC-9DB8-773C044F0231@gmail.com>
> On Feb 17, 2022, at 6:23 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PS: I always think here the VM_SOFTDIRTY check is wrong, IMHO it should be:
>>
>> if (dirty_accountable && pte_dirty(ptent) &&
>> (pte_soft_dirty(ptent) ||
>> (vma->vm_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY))) {
>> ptent = pte_mkwrite(ptent);
>> }
I know it is off-topic (not directly related to my patch), but
I tried to understand the logic - both of the existing code and of
your suggested change - and I failed.
IIUC dirty_accountable (whose value is taken from
vma_wants_writenotify()) means that the writes *should* be tracked,
and therefore the page should remain read-only.
So basically the condition should have been based on
!dirty_accountable, i.e. the inverted value of dirty_accountable.
The problem is that dirty_accountable also reflects VM_SOFTDIRTY
considerations, so looking on the PTE does not tell you whether
the PTE should remain write-protected even if it is dirty.
Am I missing something?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-18 4:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20220217211602.2769-1-namit@vmware.com>
2022-02-17 21:28 ` Nadav Amit
2022-02-18 1:58 ` Peter Xu
2022-02-18 2:23 ` Nadav Amit
2022-02-18 3:56 ` Peter Xu
2022-02-18 4:00 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
2022-02-18 4:05 ` Nadav Amit
2022-03-16 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2022-03-17 0:11 ` Peter Xu
2022-03-17 0:20 ` Andrew Morton
2022-02-21 6:23 ` Peter Xu
2022-02-28 18:31 ` Nadav Amit
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=68B04C0D-F8CE-4C95-9032-CF703436DC99@gmail.com \
--to=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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