Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:45:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:45:23 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:13819 "EHLO mtvmime03.VERITAS.COM") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:45:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 06:53:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: "David S. Miller" cc: akpm@digeo.com, , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] flush_cache_page while pte valid In-Reply-To: <20021111.151929.31543489.davem@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1211 Lines: 29 On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Hugh Dickins > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:25:25 +0000 (GMT) > > On some architectures (cachetlb.txt gives HyperSparc as an example) > it is essential to flush_cache_page while pte is still valid: the > rmap VM diverged from the base 2.4 VM before that fix was made, > so this error has crept back into 2.5. > ... > (I wonder, what happens if userspace now modifies the page > after the flush_cache_page, before the pte is invalidated?) > > Thanks for catching this. > > On architectures that are affected (such as the mentioned HyperSPARC > chips), the cpu will take a trap and OOPS the kernel if the PTE is > invalidated before the cache flush is made. Thanks for shedding light on that; but I'm still wondering if there might be data loss if userspace modifies the page in the tiny window between correctly positioned flush_cache_page and pte invalidation? Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/