On 10/24/2013 06:39 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:10:46PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 10/24/2013 05:52 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 05:29:44PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2013 05:19 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -946,7 +947,7 @@ static inline struct kvm_mmu_page *page_header(hpa_t shadow_page)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct page *page = pfn_to_page(shadow_page >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - return (struct kvm_mmu_page *)page_private(page);
>>>>>> + return (struct kvm_mmu_page *)(page->mapping);
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> That's because page->private has been used by slab:
>>>>
>>> But does lockless path actually looks at it?
>>
>> Lockless path does not use it, however, it is used by kvm_mmu_page():
>>
>> static inline struct kvm_mmu_page *page_header(hpa_t shadow_page)
>> {
>> struct page *page = pfn_to_page(shadow_page >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>
>> return (struct kvm_mmu_page *)(page->mapping);
>> }
>>
>> which is used in the common code.
> Ah, so the pointer is not available even after object is allocated.
> Make sense since we allocate object, not page here, but is it safe to
> use mapping like that?
The commens says:
struct address_space *mapping; /* If low bit clear, points to
* inode address_space, or NULL.
* If page mapped as anonymous
* memory, low bit is set, and
* it points to anon_vma object:
* see PAGE_MAPPING_ANON below.
It seems mapping is used for address_space or anonymous memory, in
our case, the page is used by slab, so I guess it is ok. And the bug
i put in set_page_header() was not tiggered on both slab and slub.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
