On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:37:07PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 04/07/2015 04:26 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:17:00PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 03:57:32PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Handle write page faults for VM_MIXEDMAP or VM_PFNMAP for a VM_SHARED
> >>> + * mapping
> >>> + */
> >>> +static int wp_pfn_shared(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> >>> + pte_t *page_table, spinlock_t *ptl, pte_t orig_pte,
> >>> + pmd_t *pmd)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->pfn_mkwrite) {
> >>> + struct vm_fault vmf = {
> >>> + .page = NULL,
> >>> + .pgoff = linear_page_index(vma, address),
> >>> + .virtual_address = (void __user *)(address & PAGE_MASK),
> >>> + .flags = FAULT_FLAG_WRITE | FAULT_FLAG_MKWRITE,
> >>> + };
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + pte_unmap_unlock(page_table, ptl);
> >>> + ret = vma->vm_ops->pfn_mkwrite(vma, &vmf);
> >>> + if (ret & VM_FAULT_ERROR)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> + page_table = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, address, &ptl);
> >>> + /* Did pfn_mkwrite already fixed up the pte */
> >
> > Oh. I guess you've missunderstood why we need pte_same() check below.
> > It's not about ->pfn_mkwrite() changing the pte (generatlly, it should
> > not). It's requited to address race with parallel page fault to the pte.
> >
> >>> + if (!pte_same(*page_table, orig_pte)) {
> >>> + pte_unmap_unlock(page_table, ptl);
> >>> + return ret;
> >>
> >> This should be "return 0;", shouldn't it?
> >>
> >> VM_FAULT_NOPAGE would imply you've installed new pte, but you did not.
>
> Changing this to "return 0" would be very scary for me. Because I'm running
> with this code for 1/2 a year now. And it is stable. You see since the original
> code it was always doing just that pte_unmap_unlock && return ret. (See the patch
> based on 4.0)
>
> I did not understand if you want that I keep it "return ret".
I think "return 0;" is right way to go. It matches wp_page_shared()
behaviour.
> I gather that you would like the comment changed, about the changed pte.
> Both here and at Documentation/.../locking.
>
> I'll send a new patch just tell me if you want the reurn thing
>
> Thank you
> 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>
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html