On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:51:15AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 03:37:37PM -0400, Peter Feiner wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Kirill, I prefer your approach. I'll send a v2.
> >
> > I believe you're right about c9d0bf241451. It seems like passing the old & new
> > pgprot through pgprot_modify would handle the problem. Furthermore, as you
> > suggest, mprotect_fixup should use pgprot_modify when it turns write
> > notification on. I think a patch like this is in order:
Looks good to me.
Would you mind to apply the same pgprot_modify() approach on the
clear_refs_write(), test and post the patch?
Feel free to use my singed-off-by (or suggested-by if you prefer) once
it's tested (see merge case below).
> > Not-signed-off-by: Peter Feiner <pfeiner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > index c1f2ea4..86f89a1 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > @@ -1611,18 +1611,15 @@ munmap_back:
> > }
> >
> > if (vma_wants_writenotify(vma)) {
> > - pgprot_t pprot = vma->vm_page_prot;
> > -
> > /* Can vma->vm_page_prot have changed??
> > *
> > * Answer: Yes, drivers may have changed it in their
> > * f_op->mmap method.
> > *
> > - * Ensures that vmas marked as uncached stay that way.
> > + * Ensures that vmas marked with special bits stay that way.
> > */
> > - vma->vm_page_prot = vm_get_page_prot(vm_flags & ~VM_SHARED);
> > - if (pgprot_val(pprot) == pgprot_val(pgprot_noncached(pprot)))
> > - vma->vm_page_prot = pgprot_noncached(vma->vm_page_prot);
> > + vma->vm_page_prot = pgprot_modify(vma->vm_page_prot,
> > + vm_get_page_prot(vm_flags & ~VM_SHARED);
> > }
> >
> > vma_link(mm, vma, prev, rb_link, rb_parent);
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index c43d557..6826313 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -324,7 +324,8 @@ success:
> > vm_get_page_prot(newflags));
> >
> > if (vma_wants_writenotify(vma)) {
> > - vma->vm_page_prot = vm_get_page_prot(newflags & ~VM_SHARED);
> > + vma->vm_page_prot = pgprot_modify(vma->vm_page_prot,
> > + vm_get_page_prot(newflags & ~VM_SHARED));
> > dirty_accountable = 1;
> > }
>
> Thanks a lot Peter and Kirill for catching it and providing the prelim. fixup. (Initial
> patch doesn't look that right for me because vm-softdirty should involve into
> account for newly created/expaned vmas only but not into some deep code such
> as fault handlings). Peter does the patch above helps? (out of testing machine
> at the moment so cant test myself).
One thing: there could be (I haven't checked) complications on
vma_merge(): since vm_flags are identical it assumes that it can reuse
vma->vm_page_prot of expanded vma. But VM_SOFTDIRTY is excluded from
vm_flags compatibility check. What should we do with vm_page_prot there?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>