Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:43:39 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 05/16] mm: Allow special mappings with user access cleared |
| |
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:34:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:57:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:22:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > get_user_pages_fast() will ultimately end up doing > > > pte_access_permitted() before getting the page, follow_page OTOH does > > > not do this, which makes for a curious difference between the two. > > > > > > So I'm thinking we want the below irrespective of the VM_NOUSER patch, > > > but with VM_NOUSER it would mean write(2) will no longer be able to > > > access the page. > > > > Oh.. > > > > We do call pte_access_permitted(), but only for write access. > > See can_follow_write_pte(). > > My can_follow_write_pte() looks like: > > static inline bool can_follow_write_pte(pte_t pte, unsigned int flags) > { > return pte_write(pte) || > ((flags & FOLL_FORCE) && (flags & FOLL_COW) && pte_dirty(pte)); > } > > am I perchance looking at the wrong tee?
I'm looking at Linus' tree.
It was changed recently: 5c9d2d5c269c ("mm: replace pte_write with pte_access_permitted in fault + gup paths")
+Dan.
-- Kirill A. Shutemov
| |