On 21.04.22 14:53, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> This is observed by code review only but not any real report.
>
> When we turn off swapping we could have lost the bits stored in the swap
> ptes. The new rmap-exclusive bit is fine since that turned into a page
> flag, but not for soft-dirty and uffd-wp. Add them.
>
> Suggested-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/swapfile.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index 95b63f69f388..332ccfc76142 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> {
> struct page *swapcache;
> spinlock_t *ptl;
> - pte_t *pte;
> + pte_t *pte, new_pte;
> int ret = 1;
>
> swapcache = page;
> @@ -1832,8 +1832,14 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr);
> lru_cache_add_inactive_or_unevictable(page, vma);
> }
> - set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte,
> - pte_mkold(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot)));
> + new_pte = pte_mkold(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot));
> + if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(*pte))
> + new_pte = pte_mksoft_dirty(new_pte);
> + if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(*pte)) {
> + new_pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(new_pte);
> + new_pte = pte_wrprotect(new_pte);
The wrprotect shouldn't be necessary, we don't do a pte_mkwrite(). Note
that in do_swap_page() we might have done a
maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte)), which is why the pte_wrprotect() is
required there.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
