On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 03:44:56PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When speculating faults (without holding mmap_sem) we need to validate
> that the vma against which we loaded pages is still valid when we're
> ready to install the new PTE.
>
> Therefore, replace the pte_offset_map_lock() calls that (re)take the
> PTL with pte_map_lock() which can fail in case we find the VMA changed
> since we started the fault.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [Port to 4.12 kernel]
> [Remove the comment about the fault_env structure which has been
> implemented as the vm_fault structure in the kernel]
> [move pte_map_lock()'s definition upper in the file]
> [move the define of FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE later in the series]
> [review error path in do_swap_page(), do_anonymous_page() and
> wp_page_copy()]
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index c6ddadd9d2b7..fc3698d13cb5 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2073,6 +2073,13 @@ int apply_to_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(apply_to_page_range);
>
> +static inline bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
I am not fan of the name maybe pte_offset_map_lock_if_valid() ? But
that just a taste thing. So feel free to ignore this comment.
> +{
> + vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
> + vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * handle_pte_fault chooses page fault handler according to an entry which was
> * read non-atomically. Before making any commitment, on those architectures
