On 2020-07-07 04:43, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 07.07.20 13:30, Souptick Joarder wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 3:08 PM Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
diff --git a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
index 33677ea..f6c1543 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
@@ -612,8 +612,11 @@ static void unlock_pages(struct page *pages[],
unsigned int nr_pages)
{
unsigned int i;
- for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++)
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
+ if (!PageDirty(pages[i]))
+ set_page_dirty_lock(pages[i]);
With put_page() directly following I think you should be able to use
set_page_dirty() instead, as there is obviously a reference to the page
existing.
Patch [3/3] will convert above codes to use
unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock()
which internally do the same check. So I thought to keep linux-stable
and
linux-next code in sync. John had a similar concern [1] and later
agreed to keep
this check.
Shall I keep this check ? No ?
It doesn't matter *too* much, because patch 3/3 fixes up everything by
changing it all to unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(). However, there is
something
to be said for having correct interim patches, too. :) Details:
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/a750e5e5-fd5d-663b-c5fd-261d7c939ba7@xxxxxxxxxx/
I wasn't referring to checking PageDirty(), but to the use of
set_page_dirty_lock().
Looking at the comment just before the implementation of
set_page_dirty_lock() suggests that it is fine to use set_page_dirty()
instead (so not calling lock_page()).
no no, that's a misreading of the comment. Unless this xen/privcmd code has
somehow taken a reference on page->mapping->host (which I do *not* think is
the case), then it is still racy to call set_page_dirty() here. Instead,
set_page_dirty_lock() should be used.
