On 20.07.22 20:09, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2022, at 11:00 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> My patch review skills have seen better days. I thought you'd be
>> removing the pte_write() check ... :( Tired eyes ...
>>
>>> Having said that, I do notice now that pte_mkdirty() should not be done
>>> only this condition is fulfilled. Instead we should just have
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> if (will_need) {
>>> ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent);
>>> if (pte_write(ptent))
>>> ptent = pte_mkdirty(ptent);
>>> }
>>
>> As can_change_pte_writable() will fail if it stumbles over a !pte_dirty
>> page in current code ... so I assume you would have that code before the
>> actual pte_mkwrite() logic, correct?
>
> No, I thought this should go after for 2 reasons:
>
> 1. You want to allow the PTE to be made writable following the
> can_change_pte_writable().
>
> 2. You do not want to set a non-writable PTE as dirty, especially since it
> might then be used to determine that the PTE can become writable. Doing so
> would circumvent cases in which set_page_dirty() needs to be called and
> break things down.
The I'm confused how can_change_pte_writable() would ever allow for
that. Best to show me the code :)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
