On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 05:43:34PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Doing a pte_pfn() etc. of something that is not a present page table > entry is wrong. Let's check in all relevant cases where we want to > upgrade write permissions when inserting pfns/pages whether the entry > is actually present. > > It's not expected to have caused real harm in practice, so this is more a > cleanup than a fix for something that would likely trigger in some > weird circumstances. Couldn't we e.g have a swap entry's "pfn" accidentally match the one we're inserting? Isn't that a correctness problem? > > At some point, we should likely unify the two pte handling paths, > similar to how we did it for pmds/puds. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> Nice little cleanup, thanks. Reviewed-by: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@xxxxxxx> -- Pedro
