From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:00:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ru.mvista.com ([213.79.90.228]:1303 "EHLO buildserver.ru.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1492433AbZIJQAI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:00:08 +0200 Received: from [192.168.11.243] (unknown [10.150.0.9]) by buildserver.ru.mvista.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2896E881D; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:00:08 +0500 (SAMST) Message-ID: <4AA92287.3090608@ru.mvista.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:00:07 +0400 From: Maxim Uvarov User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Baechle Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [MIPS] TLB handler fix for vmalloc'ed addresses References: <4AA656D8.9040608@ru.mvista.com> <20090910141518.GA10547@linux-mips.org> <4AA90F3B.6000204@ru.mvista.com> <20090910153744.GA10998@linux-mips.org> <4AA91FB9.205@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <4AA91FB9.205@ru.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 24016 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: muvarov@ru.mvista.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Maxim Uvarov wrote: >>>>> } >>>> So your test case allocates vmalloc memory but never touches it. >>> Yes, it is so. Bug occurs on rmmod this module. (Module does not free >>> memory >>> allocated with vmalloc(). >> >> Nor does it stop the thread on exit or avoid unloading. So panicing is >> expected. > > Ralf, I'm sorry for misunderstanding. Original kernel does panic in > this situation. In my patch it went to panic with Original kernel does _NOT_ panic. > + else if (pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd) != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_k)) > + goto no_context; > > Actually it was the reason of this patch. > > But looks like we need go immediately to no_context for 64 bit and do > not do this checks. > > Maxim. >