mbox series

[0/2] Minor fixups for hugetlb fault path

Message ID 20240509100148.22384-1-osalvador@suse.de (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series Minor fixups for hugetlb fault path | expand

Message

Oscar Salvador May 9, 2024, 10:01 a.m. UTC 
Hi,

this series contains a couple of fixups for hugetlb_fault and hugetlb_wp
respectively, where a VM_FAULT_SET_HINDEX call was missing.

I did not bother with a Fixes tag because the missing piece here is that
we will not report to userspace the right extension of the faulty area
by adjusting struct kernel_siginfo.si_addr_lsb, but I do not consider that
to be a big issue because I assume that userspace already knows the size
of the mapping anyway.

Oscar Salvador (2):
  mm/hugetlb: Add missing VM_FAULT_SET_HINDEX in hugetlb_fault
  mm/hugetlb: Add missing VM_FAULT_SET_HINDEX in hugetlb_wp

 mm/hugetlb.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Peter Xu May 9, 2024, 1:25 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:01:46PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this series contains a couple of fixups for hugetlb_fault and hugetlb_wp
> respectively, where a VM_FAULT_SET_HINDEX call was missing.
> 
> I did not bother with a Fixes tag because the missing piece here is that
> we will not report to userspace the right extension of the faulty area
> by adjusting struct kernel_siginfo.si_addr_lsb, but I do not consider that
> to be a big issue because I assume that userspace already knows the size
> of the mapping anyway.

Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Axel Rasmussen May 9, 2024, 6:13 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 6:26 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:01:46PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this series contains a couple of fixups for hugetlb_fault and hugetlb_wp
> > respectively, where a VM_FAULT_SET_HINDEX call was missing.
> >
> > I did not bother with a Fixes tag because the missing piece here is that
> > we will not report to userspace the right extension of the faulty area
> > by adjusting struct kernel_siginfo.si_addr_lsb, but I do not consider that
> > to be a big issue because I assume that userspace already knows the size
> > of the mapping anyway.
>
> Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>

Looks correct to me as well. Thanks!

Acked-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>

>
> --
> Peter Xu
>