Re: [PATCH 10/26] x86, pkeys: notify userspace about protection key faults

[Dave Hansen]

On 09/25/2015 11:20 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
>> Since follow_pte() fails for all huge
>> pages, it just falls back to pulling the protection key out of the VMA,
>> which _does_ work for huge pages.
> 
> That might be true for explicit hugetlb vmas, but what about transparent hugepages 
> that can show up in regular vmas?

All PTEs (large or small) established under a given VMA have the same
protection key.  Any change in protection key for a range will either
change or split the VMA.

So I think it's safe to rely on the VMA entirely.  Well, as least as
safe as the PTE.  It's definitely a wee bit racy, which I'll elaborate
on when I repost the patches.

>> I've actually removed the PTE walking and I just now use the VMA directly.  I 
>> don't see a ton of additional value from walking the page tables when we can get 
>> what we need from the VMA.
> 
> That's actually good, because it's also cheap, especially if we can get rid of the 
> extra find_vma().
> 
> and we (thankfully) have no non-linear vmas to worry about anymore.

Yep.
--
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/