linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/arm/mm: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:19:19 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, 
	palmer@...belt.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, 
	agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com, 
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, 
	x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/arm/mm: fix major fault accounting when retrying
 under per-VMA lock

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 6:04 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 22:43:05 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > The change [1] missed ARM architecture when fixing major fault accounting
> > for page fault retry under per-VMA lock. Add missing code to fix ARM
> > architecture fault accounting.
> >
> > [1] 46e714c729c8 ("arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock")
> >
> > Fixes: 12214eba1992 ("mm: handle read faults under the VMA lock")
>
> What are the userspace-visible runtime effects of this change?

The user-visible effects is that it restores correct major fault
accounting that was broken after [2] was merged in 6.7 kernel. The
more detailed description is in [3] and this patch simply adds the
same fix to ARM architecture which I missed in [3]. I can re-send the
patch with the full description from [3] if needed.

>
> Is a cc:stable backport desirable?

Yes, I guess since [2] was merged in 6.7, cc-ing stable would be desirable.
Please let me know if you want me to re-send the patch with full
description and CC'ing stable.

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231006195318.4087158-6-willy@infradead.org/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231226214610.109282-1-surenb@google.com/

>
> > Reported-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>