Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc8-mm1: powerpc oopses

From: Andrew Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:07:54 -0800

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:47:17 -0600
Matt Mackall <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:29 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Do we need `offset' at all?
> 
> Looks like no.
> 
> I wonder if there's a good argument for adding a pte_offset_val() which
> would let us do:
> 
> pteval = pte_offset_val(pmd, addr);
> 
> and shrink the map/unmap window and overhead here and possibly
> elsewhere?
> 
> Anyway, updated but still untested patch now with revealing comment:
> 
> diff -r 5595adaea70f fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c	Thu Jan 17 13:26:54 2008 -0600
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c	Thu Jan 17 18:45:57 2008 -0600
> @@ -584,18 +585,19 @@
>  	pte_t *pte;
>  	int err = 0;
>  
> -	pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
> -	for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> +	for (; addr != end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>  		u64 pfn = PM_NOT_PRESENT;
> +		pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
>  		if (is_swap_pte(*pte))
>  			pfn = swap_pte_to_pagemap_entry(*pte);
>  		else if (pte_present(*pte))
>  			pfn = pte_pfn(*pte);
> +		/* unmap so we're not in atomic when we copy to userspace */
> +		pte_unmap(pte);
>  		err = add_to_pagemap(addr, pfn, pm);
>  		if (err)
>  			return err;
>  	}
> -	pte_unmap(pte - 1);
>  
>  	cond_resched();

That worked out nicely.

Wasn't the old code potentially pte_unmap()ping the wrong address?  If we
enter with addr==end?