Re: Trinity and mbind flags (WAS: Re: mm: BUG in unmap_page_range)

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:24:40AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
 > On 09/10/2014 08:47 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
 > > That site should have checked PROT_NONE but it can't be the same bug
 > > that trinity is seeing. Minimally trinity is unaware of MPOL_MF_LAZY
 > > according to git grep of the trinity source.
 > 
 > Actually, if I'm reading it correctly I think that Trinity handles mbind()
 > calls wrong. It passes the wrong values for mode flags and actual flags.

Ugh, I think you're right.  I misinterpreted the man page that mentions
that flags like MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES/RELATIVE_NODES are OR'd with the
mode, and instead dumped those flags into .. the flags field.

So the 'flags' argument it generates is crap, because I didn't add
any of the actual correct values.

I'll fix it up, though if it's currently finding bugs, you might want
to keep the current syscalls/mbind.c for now.

	Dave

--
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/