lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: why do we need vmalloc_sync_all?
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> But again, the kernel no longer does this? do_page_fault() does vmalloc_fault()
>> without notify_die(). If it fails, I do not see how/why a modular DIE_OOPS
>> handler could try to resolve this problem and trigger another fault.
>
> The same problem can happen from NMI handlers or machine check
> handlers. It's not necessarily tied to page faults only.

AIUI, the point of the one and only vmalloc_sync_all call is to
prevent infinitely recursive faults when we call a notify_die
callback. The only thing that it could realistically protect is
module text or static non-per-cpu module data, since that's the only
thing that's reliably already in the init pgd. I'm with Oleg: I don't
see how that can happen, since do_page_fault fixes up vmalloc faults
before it calls notify_die.

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-15 05:41    [W:0.086 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site