[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1807111741430.1106@eggly.anvils>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwinch@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [PATCH] thp: fix data loss when splitting a file pmd
__split_huge_pmd_locked() must check if the cleared huge pmd was dirty,
and propagate that to PageDirty: otherwise, data may be lost when a huge
tmpfs page is modified then split then reclaimed.
How has this taken so long to be noticed? Because there was no problem
when the huge page is written by a write system call (shmem_write_end()
calls set_page_dirty()), nor when the page is allocated for a write fault
(fault_dirty_shared_page() calls set_page_dirty()); but when allocated
for a read fault (which MAP_POPULATE simulates), no set_page_dirty().
Fixes: d21b9e57c74c ("thp: handle file pages in split_huge_pmd()")
Reported-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwinch@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v4.8+
---
mm/huge_memory.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
--- 4.18-rc4/mm/huge_memory.c 2018-06-16 18:48:22.029173363 -0700
+++ linux/mm/huge_memory.c 2018-07-10 20:11:29.991011603 -0700
@@ -2084,6 +2084,8 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(stru
if (vma_is_dax(vma))
return;
page = pmd_page(_pmd);
+ if (!PageDirty(page) && pmd_dirty(_pmd))
+ set_page_dirty(page);
if (!PageReferenced(page) && pmd_young(_pmd))
SetPageReferenced(page);
page_remove_rmap(page, true);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists