Re: [patch 11/14] remap_file_pages protection support: pte_presentshould not trigger on PTE_FILE PROTNONE ptes

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Sat May 06 2006 - 06:30:02 EST

Blaisorblade wrote:
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 05:53, Nick Piggin wrote:

blaisorblade@xxxxxxxx wrote:

From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@xxxxxxxx>

pte_present(pte) implies that pte_pfn(pte) is valid. Normally even with a
_PAGE_PROTNONE pte this holds, but not when such a PTE is installed by
the new install_file_pte; previously it didn't store protections, only
file offsets, with the patches it also stores protections, and can set
_PAGE_PROTNONE|_PAGE_FILE.


What could be done is to set a PTE with "no protection", use another bit rather than _PAGE_PROTNONE. This wastes one more bit but doable.

I see.



Why is this combination useful? Can't you just drop the _PAGE_FILE from
_PAGE_PROTNONE ptes?


I must think on this, but the semantics are not entirely the same between the two cases.

And yes, this won't work. I was misunderstanding what was happening.

I guess your problem is that you're overloading the pte protection bits
for present ptes as protection bits for not present (file) ptes. I'd rather
you just used a different encoding for file pte protections then.

"Wasting" a bit seems much more preferable for this very uncommon case (for
most people) rather than bloating pte_present check, which is called in
practically every performance critical inner loop).

That said, if the patch is i386/uml specific then I don't have much say in
it. If Ingo/Linus and Jeff/Yourself, respectively, accept the patch, then
fine.

But I think you should drop the comment from the core code. It seems wrong.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/