On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> index ab709023e9aa..c08c4055b051 100644
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,8 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> oldpte = *pte;
> if (pte_present(oldpte)) {
> pte_t ptent;
> - bool preserve_write = prot_numa && pte_write(oldpte);
> + bool preserve_write = (prot_numa || uffd_wp_resolve) &&
> + pte_write(oldpte);
Irrelevant of the other tlb issue, this is a standalone one and I commented in
v1 about simply ignore the change if necessary; unluckily that seems to be
ignored.. so I'll try again - would below be slightly better?
if (uffd_wp_resolve && !pte_uffd_wp(oldpte))
continue;
Firstly, current patch is confusing at least to me, because "uffd_wp_resolve"
means "unprotect the pte", whose write bit should mostly be cleared already
when uffd_wp_resolve is applicable. Then "preserve_write" for that pte looks
odd already.
Meanwhile, if that really happens (when pte write bit set, but during a
uffd_wp_resolve request) imho there is really nothing we can do, so we should
simply avoid touching that at all, and also avoid ptep_modify_prot_start,
pte_modify, ptep_modify_prot_commit, calls etc., which takes extra cost.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
