linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND -mm 2/2] mm/mempolicy.c: add comment in queue_pages

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20140319133305.13cb7a03f6bd3745889f65b3@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:33:05 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND -mm 2/2] mm/mempolicy.c: add comment in
 queue_pages_hugetlb()

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:29:39 -0400 Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> wrote:

> We have a race where we try to migrate an invalid page, resulting in
> hitting VM_BUG_ON_PAGE in isolate_huge_page().
> queue_pages_hugetlb() is OK to fail, so let's check !PageHeadHuge to keep
> invalid hugepage from queuing.
> 
> ..
>
> --- v3.14-rc7-mmotm-2014-03-18-16-37.orig/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ v3.14-rc7-mmotm-2014-03-18-16-37/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -530,6 +530,17 @@ static int queue_pages_hugetlb(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr,
>  	if (!pte_present(entry))
>  		return 0;
>  	page = pte_page(entry);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Trinity found that page could be a non-hugepage. This is an
> +	 * unexpected behavior, but it's not clear how this problem happens.
> +	 * So let's simply skip such corner case. Page migration can often
> +	 * fail for various reasons, so it's ok to just skip the address
> +	 * unsuitable to hugepage migration.
> +	 */
> +	if (!PageHeadHuge(page))
> +		return 0;
> +

Whoa, we won't be doing this thanks.  The day we resort to this sort of
thing is the day we revert to the 2.2.26 VM.

I suppose I'd be OK with putting

	if (WARN_ON(!PageHeadHuge(page)))
		return 0;

in there as a temporary be-kind-to-testers thing, but we must get a
full understanding of what's happening in there.

Was this problem caused by or exposed by the pagetable walker patches?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/