> > Any chance you can change the __follow_page test to account for
> > writeable clean ptes? Something like
> >
> > if (write && !pte_dirty(pte) && !pte_write(pte))
> > goto out;
> >
> > And then you would re-add the set_page_dirty logic further on.
>
> Hmm.. That should be possible. I wanted to do the simplest possible code
> sequence, but yeah, I guess there's nothing wrong with allowing the code
> to dirty the page.
>
> Somebody want to send me a proper patch? Also, I haven't actually heard
> from whoever actually noticed the problem in the first place (Robin?)
> whether the fix does fix it. It "obviously does", but testing is always
> good ;)
Why do we require the !pte_dirty(pte) check? I don't get it. If a writeable
clean pte is just fine then why do we check the dirty bit at all? Doesn't
pte_dirty() imply pte_write()?
With the additional !pte_write(pte) check (and if I haven't overlooked
something which is not unlikely) s390 should work fine even without the
software-dirty bit hack.
blue skies,
Martin
Martin Schwidefsky
Linux for zSeries Development & Services
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |