linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH 0/2] mm: mempolicy: fix mbind()'s inconsistent behavior for unmovable 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ac6df169-84cd-b3e4-f1e4-b82b4cb60da3@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:54:11 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...nel.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 0/2] mm: mempolicy: fix mbind()'s inconsistent behavior
 for unmovable pages



On 7/15/19 4:51 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
> On 7/15/19 3:22 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:20:07 +0800 Yang Shi 
>> <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Changelog
>>> v2: * Fixed the inconsistent behavior by not aborting !vma_migratable()
>>>        immediately by a separate patch (patch 1/2), and this is also 
>>> the
>>>        preparation for patch 2/2. For the details please see the commit
>>>        log.  Per Vlastimil.
>>>      * Not abort immediately if unmovable page is met. This should 
>>> handle
>>>        non-LRU movable pages and temporary off-LRU pages more friendly.
>>>        Per Vlastimil and Michal Hocko.
>>>
>>> Yang Shi (2):
>>>        mm: mempolicy: make the behavior consistent when 
>>> MPOL_MF_MOVE* and MPOL_MF_STRICT were specified
>>>        mm: mempolicy: handle vma with unmovable pages mapped 
>>> correctly in mbind
>>>
>> I'm seeing no evidence of review on these two.  Could we please take a
>> look?  2/2 fixes a kernel crash so let's please also think about the
>> -stable situation.
>
> Thanks for following up this. It seems I have a few patches stalled 
> due to lack of review.
>
> BTW, this would not crash post-4.9 kernel since that BUG_ON had been 
> removed. But, that behavior is definitely problematic as the commit 
> log elaborated.
>
>>
>> I have a note here that Vlastimil had an issue with [1/2] but I seem to
>> hae misplaced that email :(

Vlastimil suggested something for v1, then I think his concern and 
suggestion have been solved in this version. But, the review was stalled.