2008/1/23, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Anton Salikhmetov wrote:
> > +
> > + if (pte_dirty(*pte) && pte_write(*pte)) {
>
> Not correct.
>
> You still need to check "pte_present()" before you can test any other
> bits. For a non-present pte, none of the other bits are defined, and for
> all we know there might be architectures out there that require them to
> be non-dirty.
>
> As it is, you just possibly randomly corrupted the pte.
>
> Yeah, on all architectures I know of, it the pte is clear, neither of
> those tests will trigger, so it just happens to work, but it's still
> wrong. And for a MAP_SHARED mapping, it should be either clear or valid,
> although I can imagine that we might do swap-cache entries for tmpfs or
> something (in which case trying to clear the write-enable bit would
> corrupt the swap entry!).
>
> So the bug might be hard or even impossible to trigger in practice, but
> it's still wrong.
>
> I realize that "page_mkclean_one()" doesn't do this very obviously, but
> it's actually there (it's just hidden in page_check_address()).
>
> Quite frankly, at this point I'm getting *very* tired of this series.
> Especially since you ignored me when I suggested you just revert the
> commit that removed the page table walking - and instead send in a buggy
> patch.
>
> Yes, the VM is hard. I agree. It's nasty. But exactly because it's nasty
> and subtle and horrid, I'm also very anal about it, and I get really
> nervous when somebody touches it without (a) knowing all the rules
> intimately and (b) listening to people who do.
>
> So here's even a patch to get you started. Do this:
>
> git revert 204ec841fbea3e5138168edbc3a76d46747cc987
>
> and then use this appended patch on top of that as a starting point for
> something that compiles and *possibly* works.
>
> And no, I do *not* guarantee that this is right either! I have not tested
> it or thought about it a lot, and S390 tends to be odd about some of these
> things. In particular, I actually suspect that we should possibly do this
> the same way we do
>
> ptep_clear_flush_young()
>
> except we would do "ptep_clear_flush_wrprotect()". So even though this is
> a revert plus a simple patch to make it compile again (we've changed how
> we do dirty bits), I think a patch like this needs testing and other
> people like Nick and Peter to ack it.
I'm very sorry for my bad code which can not pass LKML's review.
I reassigned the bug #2645 to default assignee, Andrew Morton, because
it seems that people start getting tired of my patch series.
Thanks for your support.
>
> Nick? Peter? Testing? Other comments?
>
> Linus
>
> ---
> mm/msync.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/msync.c b/mm/msync.c
> index a30487f..9b0af8f 100644
> --- a/mm/msync.c
> +++ b/mm/msync.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ static unsigned long msync_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct
> *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> again:
> pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> do {
> + pte_t entry;
> struct page *page;
>
> if (progress >= 64) {
> @@ -47,9 +48,11 @@ again:
> page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, *pte);
> if (!page)
> continue;
> - if (ptep_clear_flush_dirty(vma, addr, pte) ||
> - page_test_and_clear_dirty(page))
> - ret += set_page_dirty(page);
> + entry = ptep_clear_flush(vma, addr, pte);
> + entry = pte_wrprotect(entry);
> + set_pte_at(mm, address, pte, entry);
> +
> + ret += 1;
> progress += 3;
> } while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
> pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
