Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:20:39 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] mm: Fix vma_is_anonymous() false-positives
Message-ID: <20180712162039.GA16175@redhat.com>
References: <20180712145626.41665-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20180712145626.41665-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180712145626.41665-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Kirill, I am not trying to review this change (but it looks good to me),
just a silly question...

On 07/12, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> This can be fixed by assigning anonymous VMAs own vm_ops and not relying
> on it being NULL.

I agree, this makes sense, but...

> If ->mmap() failed to set ->vm_ops, mmap_region() will set it to
> dummy_vm_ops.

Shouldn't this change alone fix the problem?

Oleg.