Hi Ilya.
Cc: sparclinux + David S. Miller.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 04:03:50PM +0400, Ilya Malakhov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> While analyzing a rather nasty problem with an application running at
> sun4m sparc32 hosts with "Fujitsu TurboSparc" and "TI Viking/MXCC"
> MMUs, I realized, that as a 4Kb "Page Table" was freed, only the first
> element in the corresponding `pmdv[]' array in
>
> typedef struct { unsigned long pmdv[16]; } pmd_t;
>
> was actually cleared, rather than all the 16 ones.
>
> The reason for that was the use of `BTFIXUPCALL_SWAPO0G0' instead of
> `BTFIXUPCALL_NORM' for `pmd_clear' in case of "default" SRMMU (except
> for some specific types of SRMMU) during initialization:
> . .
> BTFIXUPSET_CALL(pmd_clear, srmmu_pmd_clear, BTFIXUPCALL_SWAPO0G0);
> . .
>
> That would probably be OK if pmd_t were `struct { unsigned long pmd;
> }' as it used to be ten years ago, but seems to be erroneous nowadays,
> doesn't it?
>
> From a user's point of view this leads to poorly diagnosable
> problems. E.g., after a series of mmaps and munmaps one may find
> himself in a situation, where different virtual addresses are mapped to
> the same physical one.
>
Sounds like a problem that have taken long time to track down!
> A recent commit by David Miller, where pmd_clear() is un-btfixupped,
> is likely to solve this problem in future versions of the kernel.
We were very glad to kill off this btfixup thing.
> I wonder, if any patches for older ones should be expected.
If someone submits a patch for this it is likely to happen - hint!
That patch should explicit reference the commit in upstrem
that fixes the same bug.
Otherwise - no.
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
