On Tue, 22 Aug 2023, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 11:34:19AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > (Yes, the locking is a bit confusing: but mainly for the unrelated reason,
> > that with the split locking configs, we never quite know whether this lock
> > is the same as that lock or no
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 8:54 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> But rather than reworking it, please let's just go with v1 for now.
Sounds good to me.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:51 AM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:51 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > Just for this case, take the pmd_lock() two steps earlier: not because
> > > > it gives any prote
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 11:34:19AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> (Yes, the locking is a bit confusing: but mainly for the unrelated reason,
> that with the split locking configs, we never quite know whether this lock
> is the same as that lock or not, and so have to be rather careful.)
Is it time t
On 22.08.23 17:30, Jann Horn wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:23 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 04:39:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
Perhaps something else will want that same behaviour in future (it's
tempting, but difficult to guarantee correctness); for now, it is just
userf
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:23 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 04:39:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > Perhaps something else will want that same behaviour in future (it's
> > > tempting, but difficult to guarantee correctness); for now, it is just
> > > userfaultfd (but by sayin
On 22.08.23 16:39, Jann Horn wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:51 AM Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Jann Horn wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:51 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
Just for this case, take the pmd_lock() two steps earlier: not because
it gives any protection against this case i
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 04:39:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Perhaps something else will want that same behaviour in future (it's
> > tempting, but difficult to guarantee correctness); for now, it is just
> > userfaultfd (but by saying "_armed" rather than "_missing", I'm half-
> > expecting uffd
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:51 AM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:51 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Just for this case, take the pmd_lock() two steps earlier: not because
> > > it gives any protection against this case itself, but because ptlo
Hi, Hugh, Jann,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 07:51:38PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:51 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Jann Horn demonstrated how userfaultfd ioctl UFFDIO_COPY into a private
> > > shmem mapping can add valid PTEs to pag
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:51 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Jann Horn demonstrated how userfaultfd ioctl UFFDIO_COPY into a private
> > shmem mapping can add valid PTEs to page table collapse_pte_mapped_thp()
> > thought it had emptied: page lock on the huge pag
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:51 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Jann Horn demonstrated how userfaultfd ioctl UFFDIO_COPY into a private
> shmem mapping can add valid PTEs to page table collapse_pte_mapped_thp()
> thought it had emptied: page lock on the huge page is enough to protect
> against WP faults (wh
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 12:51:20PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Jann Horn demonstrated how userfaultfd ioctl UFFDIO_COPY into a private
> shmem mapping can add valid PTEs to page table collapse_pte_mapped_thp()
> thought it had emptied: page lock on the huge page is enough to protect
> against WP f
Jann Horn demonstrated how userfaultfd ioctl UFFDIO_COPY into a private
shmem mapping can add valid PTEs to page table collapse_pte_mapped_thp()
thought it had emptied: page lock on the huge page is enough to protect
against WP faults (which find the PTE has been cleared), but not enough
to protect
14 matches
Mail list logo
