[PATCH v2 4/8] x86: Add a comment clarifying LDT context switching

[Andy Lutomirski]

The code is correct, but only for a rather subtle reason.  This
confused me for quite a while when I read switch_mm, so clarify the
code to avoid confusing other people, too.

TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if this code was only correct by
accident.

Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
index 166af2a8e865..23697f74b372 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
@@ -53,7 +53,18 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
 		/* Stop flush ipis for the previous mm */
 		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));
 
-		/* Load the LDT, if the LDT is different: */
+		/*
+		 * Load the LDT, if the LDT is different.
+		 *
+		 * It's possible that prev->context.ldt doesn't match
+		 * the LDT register.  This can happen if leave_mm(prev)
+		 * was called and then modify_ldt changed
+		 * prev->context.ldt but suppressed an IPI to this CPU.
+		 * In this case, prev->context.ldt != NULL, because we
+		 * never free an LDT while the mm still exists.  That
+		 * means that next->context.ldt != prev->context.ldt,
+		 * because mms never share an LDT.
+		 */
 		if (unlikely(prev->context.ldt != next->context.ldt))
 			load_LDT_nolock(&next->context);
 	}
-- 
1.9.3

--
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/