On 03/16/2018 12:14 PM, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:

From: Jérôme Glisse jglisse@redhat.com

The private field of mm_walk struct point to an hmm_vma_walk struct and not to the hmm_range struct desired. Fix to get proper struct pointer.

Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse jglisse@redhat.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Evgeny Baskakov ebaskakov@nvidia.com Cc: Ralph Campbell rcampbell@nvidia.com Cc: Mark Hairgrove mhairgrove@nvidia.com Cc: John Hubbard jhubbard@nvidia.com

---

mm/hmm.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c index 6088fa6ed137..64d9e7dae712 100644 --- a/mm/hmm.c +++ b/mm/hmm.c @@ -293,7 +293,8 @@ static int hmm_pfns_bad(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk) {

• struct hmm_range *range = walk->private;

• struct hmm_vma_walk *hmm_vma_walk = walk->private;
• struct hmm_range *range = hmm_vma_walk->range; hmm_pfn_t *pfns = range->pfns; unsigned long i;

This fix looks good. I also checked the other uses of walk->private, of course, but it was only this one that was wrong.

I think this patch also belongs in -stable, because it is a simple bug fix.

For the description, well...actually, because ->range is the first element in struct hmm_vma_walk, you probably end up with the same pointer value, both before and after this fix. So maybe there are no symptoms to see. Maybe that's an argument for *not* putting it in -stable, too. I'll leave that question to more experienced people.

Either way, you can add:

Reviewed by: John Hubbard jhubbard@nvidia.com

thanks,