On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:17PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:38:42PM +0000, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
quoted
quoted
Does having a tagged address here makes any difference? I couldn't hit a
failure with my simple tests (LD_PRELOAD a library that randomly adds
tags to pointers returned by malloc).
I think you're right, follow_page_mask is only called from
__get_user_pages, which already untagged the address. I'll remove
untagging here.
It also called from follow_page(). Have you covered all its callers?
Oh, missed that, will take a look.
Thinking about that, would it make sense to add untagging to find_vma
(and others) instead of trying to cover all find_vma callers?
I don't think adding the untagging to find_vma() is sufficient. In many
cases the caller does a subsequent check like 'start < vma->vm_start'
(see sys_msync() as an example, there are a few others as well). What I
did in my tests was a WARN_ON_ONCE() in find_vma() if the address is
tagged.
--
Catalin