lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 5 Feb 2009 21:09:04 +0000 (GMT)
FromHugh Dickins <>
SubjectRe: pud_bad vs pud_bad
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, wli@movementarian.org wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, wli@movementarian.org wrote:
> >> The RW bit needs to be allowed to become read-only for hugetlb COW.
> >> Changing it over to the 32-bit method is a bugfix by that token.
>
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 08:14:42PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > If there's a bugfix to be made there, of course I'm in favour:
> > but how come we've never seen such a bug? hugetlb COW has been
> > around for a year or two by now, hasn't it?
>
> We can tell from the code that a write-protected pte mapping of a
> 1GB hugetlb page would be flagged as bad. It must not be called on
> ptes mapping hugetlb pages if they're not getting flagged.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, the hugetlb case goes its own way
and doesn't normally hit those p??_bad() macro/inlines; but we got
caught out in follow_page() a year ago, a bad looked huge or a
huge looked bad, but I forget the details at this instant.

Hugh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-05 22:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2010