[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:30:25 +0200 Jan Kara <> wrote:

> > Also, maintainability. What happens if someone now uses put_page() by
> > mistake? Kernel fails in some mysterious fashion? How can we prevent
> > this from occurring as code evolves? Is there a cheap way of detecting
> > this bug at runtime?
> The same will happen as with any other reference counting bug - the special
> user reference will leak. It will be pretty hard to debug I agree. I was
> thinking about whether we could provide some type safety against such bugs
> such as get_user_pages() not returning struct page pointers but rather some
> other special type but it would result in a big amount of additional churn
> as we'd have to propagate this different type e.g. through the IO path so
> that IO completion routines could properly call put_user_pages(). So I'm
> not sure it's really worth it.

I'm not really understanding. Patch 3/3 changes just one infiniband
driver to use put_user_page(). But the changelogs here imply (to me)
that every user of get_user_pages() needs to be converted to

Methinks a bit more explanation is needed in these changelogs?

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-10 01:21    [W:0.157 / U:13.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site