linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: Fix clear_user_highpage arguments

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: Fix clear_user_highpage arguments
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:23:18 -0700
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
In-reply-to: <20070928185335.GA10976@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20070928163545.GA5933@linux-mips.org> <20070928114526.3398c462.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070928185335.GA10976@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:53:35 +0100 Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:45:26AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > The virtual address space argument of clear_user_highpage is supposed to
> > > be the virtual address where the page being cleared will eventually be
> > > mapped. This allows architectures with virtually indexed caches a few
> > > clever tricks.  That sort of trick falls over in painful ways if the
> > > virtual address argument is wrong.
> > 
> > yeah, but only if you're using a weird CPU architecture ;)
> 
> I guess once I convinced your employer that weird CPU architectures
> deliver more punch for the watt they stop being so weird ;-)

<wonders what you've gone and done this time>

> > > 
> > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > index 84c795e..eab8c42 100644
> > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ static void clear_huge_page(struct page *page, unsigned 
> > > long addr)
> > >   might_sleep();
> > >   for (i = 0; i < (HPAGE_SIZE/PAGE_SIZE); i++) {
> > >           cond_resched();
> > > -         clear_user_highpage(page + i, addr);
> > > +         clear_user_highpage(page + i, addr + i * PAGE_SIZE);
> > >   }
> > >  }
> > >  
> > 
> > I'll add this to the 2.6.23 queue.  Is it needed in 2.6.22.x?
> 
> It's totally theoretical atm, MIPS doesn't support hugetlb and I'm not
> even working on it.  I just happened to spot the issue.

sparc64 might care about this bug.

Anyway, I'll plop it in 2.6.23.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>