Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 11:24:40 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/uffd: Fix pte marker when fork() without fork
 event
Message-ID: <Y5ybyFa5U9VzVcwg@x1n>
References: <20221214200453.1772655-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20221214200453.1772655-2-peterx@redhat.com>
 <618b69be-0e99-e35f-04b3-9c63d78ece50@redhat.com>
 <Y5yGp6ToQD+eYrv/@x1n>
 <8c36dd0a-90be-91bf-0ded-55b34ee0a770@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8c36dd0a-90be-91bf-0ded-55b34ee0a770@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:57:33PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> I'm more concerned about backports, when one backports #1 but not #2. In
> theory, patch #2 fixes patch #1, because that introduced IMHO a real
> regression -- a possible memory corruption when discarding a hwpoison
> marker. Warnings are not nice but at least indicate that something needs a
> second look.

Note that backporting patch 1 only is exactly what I wanted to do here - it
means his/her tree should not have the swapin error pte markers at all.

The swapin error pte marker change only existed for a few days in Linus's
tree, so no one should be backporting patch 2.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu