On 08/02/2018 16:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> I reviewed that part of code, and I think I could now change the way
>> pte_unmap_safe() is checking for the pte's value. Since we now have all the
>> needed details in the vm_fault str
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> I reviewed that part of code, and I think I could now change the way
> pte_unmap_safe() is checking for the pte's value. Since we now have all the
> needed details in the vm_fault structure, I will pass it to
> pte_unamp_same() and d
On 06/02/2018 21:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:49:50PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>>
>> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
>> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
>> cannot assume the p
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:49:50PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
> mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
> cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
>
> Remove the rel
From: Peter Zijlstra
One of the side effects of speculating on faults (without holding
mmap_sem) is that we can race with free_pgtables() and therefore we
cannot assume the page-tables will stick around.
Remove the reliance on the pte pointer.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
In most of
5 matches
Mail list logo