On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 03:06:06PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 05:44:35PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > I'll wait for some more (+retest) before I resend tomorrow.
>
> One more thing just to double check:
>
> It's 6a56ccbcf6c6 ("mm/autonuma: use can_change_(pte|pmd)_writable() to
> replace savedwrite", 2022-11-30) that just started to break uffd-wp on
> numa, am I right?
>
> With the old code, pte_modify() will persist uffd-wp bit, afaict, and we
> used to do savedwrite for numa hints. That all look correct to me until
> the savedwrite removal patchset with/without vm_page_prot changes.
>
> If that's the case, we'd better also mention that in the commit message and
> has another Fixes: for that one to be clear.
Nah, never mind. I think the savedwrite will not guarantee pte write
protected just like the migration path. The commit message is correct.
--
Peter Xu
