From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C41C0015E for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:03:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=bGByrSCes7nzbMOKm4zVDuIRlUwz7Yc4a8ks2ht57qE=; b=lJztH/mOIhssCN d8GlhZcX+0OvhVi7RsSzDwGS1HIadZ0hGw4A3zhmI4sFpgCvSnjGnkLZXEFLFxI8Ugf0Ab7uUnm9C A51pupRkZ1ybbvkuA3MX7LFFGnFr56awPmpWsMWr+3nMmC2zvmNHSrGZkgmg6hruNAMIfUGXpbOYq NlIN/4yTBybj/MGIr3/w47o7Gu8mdW9Ura+/DCGbwzTmAXkJ2V/V9oTe5fDMxYT4mGXXmd5NT+rJa Bn2yfQRjsYxjMoeDXgr1SHzLnG6UvUzy/lMFq2S7ob5FLBOokPtSs6CPcayZGSQifg9WuB3hVmxRZ CQKrg/DfRuSVSWPnrfdA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qUPvQ-00AMqY-1y; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:03:24 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qUPvK-00AMo8-2j for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:03:20 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39BC766F51; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF0CFC433C8; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:03:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1691751797; bh=PjX3Kj30CvssUoUzKqXeYgWsx+H2hFXKVoFi6QaOBNY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=SCQN3lGyQBoZwxoioLWZpfDejCNEPdCkuNsAASUmFiChXFzmqJILdpvvrPNubwaX4 FxBfL2iYPzGKq4I1zsAtGCdPUd0g2sdGStehBifmE4WRZVA0bZDN/OtNmvWZAurG8v p4rXVhE2NnPjqKLqHqZW7f+vYUjE9Pv12H6LXDATo7cRNWejmAC9UdR5et2+dtqdsu LPHtaXtqj7afNFie1RBS1gaL/02zicmkKqVW20CspQ84mt/Gzi3VOs/7uY5U2zxmu3 ma8MS5oGac+G/joxsXTXIAGEfoXJI59rOZScOpcP3cLxA500jJk7owqkd36AYol7a6 num+iIFe31AaA== Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:03:12 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Qi Zheng Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.co, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, muchun.song@linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qi Zheng Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: use ptep_clear() instead of pte_clear() in clear_flush() Message-ID: <20230811110311.GB6993@willie-the-truck> References: <20230810093241.1181142-1-qi.zheng@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230810093241.1181142-1-qi.zheng@linux.dev> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230811_040318_932801_4A4767CF X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 10.42 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:32:41AM +0000, Qi Zheng wrote: > From: Qi Zheng > > In clear_flush(), the original pte may be a present entry, so we should > use ptep_clear() to let page_table_check track the pte clearing operation, > otherwise it may cause false positive in subsequent set_pte_at(). Isn't this true for most users of pte_clear()? There are some in the core code, so could they trigger the false positive as well? Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel