From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:44104 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754110AbeFLStD (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:49:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:49:01 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Ben Hutchings Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Vlastimil Babka , Andrea Arcangeli , Michal Hocko , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Catalin Marinas , David Daney , David Miller , "H. Peter Anvin" , Hugh Dickins , Ingo Molnar , Martin Schwidefsky , Nitin Gupta , Ralf Baechle , Thomas Gleixner , Vineet Gupta , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 051/268] asm-generic: provide generic_pmdp_establish() Message-ID: <20180612184901.GC24187@kroah.com> References: <20180528100202.045206534@linuxfoundation.org> <20180528100207.739905012@linuxfoundation.org> <1528721717.2289.114.camel@codethink.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1528721717.2289.114.camel@codethink.co.uk> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 01:55:17PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 12:00 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 4.4-stable review patch.��If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" > > > > [ Upstream commit c58f0bb77ed8bf93dfdde762b01cb67eebbdfc29 ] > > > > Patch series "Do not lose dirty bit on THP pages", v4. > > > > Vlastimil noted that pmdp_invalidate() is not atomic and we can lose > > dirty and access bits if CPU sets them after pmdp dereference, but > > before set_pmd_at(). > > > > The bug can lead to data loss, but the race window is tiny and I haven't > > seen any reports that suggested that it happens in reality.��So I don't > > think it worth sending it to stable. > [...] > > This patch (of 12): > > > > This is an implementation of pmdp_establish() that is only suitable for > > an architecture that doesn't have hardware dirty/accessed bits.��In this > > case we can't race with CPU which sets these bits and non-atomic > > approach is fine. > [...] > > There's no point in applying just this patch, since it adds a new > function that nothing will call. > > I tend to think that since this is fixing a potential data loss, the > whole series should be backported. But the commit message here says it > shouldn't. Hm, I thought there was some reason for this patch, as I thought it came up before. Sasha do you remember? Should I just revert it? thanks, greg k-h