On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:08:49 +0200 Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
> David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > > commit 61f77eda "mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code around
> > > follow_huge_*" broke follow_huge_pmd() on s390, where pmd and pte
> > > layout differ and using pte_page() on a huge pmd will return wrong
> > > results. Using pmd_page() instead fixes this.
> > >
> > > All architectures that were touched by commit 61f77eda have
> > > pmd_page() defined, so this should not break anything on other
> > > architectures.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v3.12
> >
> > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I'm not sure where the stable cc came from, though: commit 61f77eda
> > makes s390 use a generic version of follow_huge_pmd() and that
> > generic version is buggy for s930 because of commit e66f17ff7177
> > ("mm/hugetlb: take page table lock in follow_huge_pmd()"). Both of
> > those are 4.0 material, though, so why is this needed for stable 3.12?
>
> Both commits 61f77eda and e66f17ff already made it into the 3.12 stable
> tree, probably because of SLES 12 (actually that's how I noticed them).
>
> But I guess I screwed up the stable CC, stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.#.v3.12
> somehow doesn't look right, not sure if the CC in the patch header
> suffices. Looks like Jiri Slaby added the patches to 3.12, putting him
> on CC now.
hm. I think I'll make it
Fixes: 61f77eda "mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code around follow_huge_*"
...
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
There's enough info here for the various tree maintainers to work out
whether their kernel needs this fix.
--
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>