On 07/05/2015 06:44 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> Again that could mean a theoretical regression for some in-tree driver,
>> do you know of any such driver?
>
> I did very little testing with the patch: boot kvm with Fedora and run
> trinity there for a while. More testing is required.
>
It seems more likely to be a bug in some obscure real HW driver, then
anything virtualized.
Let me run a quick search and see if I can see any obvious candidates
for this ...
<arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.c>
static struct vm_operations_struct gate_vma_ops = {
.name = gate_vma_name,
};
Perhaps it was done for this one
</arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.c>
<arch/x86/mm/mpx.c>
static struct vm_operations_struct mpx_vma_ops = {
.name = mpx_mapping_name,
};
Or this
</arch/x86/mm/mpx.c>
<more>
static const struct vm_operations_struct pci_mmap_ops = {
static const struct vm_operations_struct mmap_mem_ops = {
...
</more>
I was looking in-tree for any vm_operations_struct declaration without a .fault
member, there are these above and a slue of HW drivers that only have an .open
and .close so those might populate at open time and never actually ever fault.
Please have a quick look, I did not. I agree about the possible security badness.
Thanks
Boaz
--
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>