Message-ID: <91483d71-a12d-1e52-e9c9-135404c5219f@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:05:56 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mmap: Don't unlock VMAs in remap_file_pages()

On 16.12.20 21:42, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> 
> Thank you for looking at this.  I appreciate the scrutiny.
> 
> * David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> [201216 09:58]:
>> On 15.12.20 16:54, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>>> do_mmap() will unlock the necessary VMAs.  There is also a bug in the
>>> loop which will evaluate as false and not unlock any VMAs anyways.
>>
>> If there is a BUG, do we have a Fixes: tag? Also
> 
> The bug would never show up as it is masked by do_mmap() unlocking the
> necessary range.  Although there is a bug in this code, the code does
> not cause an issue as it won't execute so should I have a Fixes tag?
> The code works and what I've done is remove a chunk of code that never
> runs.
> 

Ok I see. The use of "bug" here is misleading. The unnecessary code is
simply not doing what it promised to do without doing any harm.

>>
>> 1. Can we fix the bug separately first?
> 
> I think it is safer to remove unexecuted code than enable it and then
> remove it.

I agree, as it is not actually a bug.

> 
>> 2. Can we have a better description on what the bug actually is
>> "evaluate as false"? What is the result of the bug?
> 
> The bug is in the for loop test expression that I removed in the patch.
> Here is the long explaination of why the loop has never run.
> 
> 
> Line 2982: if (start + size <= start
> Line 2983: 	goto out;
> 
> size is positive.
> 
> Line 2992: vma = find_vma(mm, start);
> Look up the first VMA which satisfies start < vm_end
> 
> Line 2997: if (start < vma->vm_start)
> Line 2998: 	goto out;
> 
> So now vma->vm_start >= start.
> If vma->vm_start > start, then there are no VMAs in that area, otherwise
> it would have been returned by find_vma().
> So we can say that vma->vm_start == start.
> 
> Line 3033: for (tmp = vma; tmp->vm_start >= start + size;
> Line 3034:                 tmp = tmp->vm_next) {
> This is the for loop with the error in the test expression.
> 
> tmp->vm_start == start which cannot be >= (start + size).
> 
> I believe the intention was to loop through vmas in the range of start
> to (start + size) and unlock them.
> 
> 
> The result of the bug is no VMA is unlocked in this fuction.  But that
> doesn't matter as they are unlocked later in the call chain - which is
> why this code works as intended.
> 

Thanks for clarifying!

> 
>>
>> CCing some people that might know if this is actually a sane change.
>> Skimming over do_mmap(), it's not immediately clear to me that
>> "do_mmap() will unlock the necessary VMAs".
> 
> Ah, yes.  That is understandable.
> 
> do_mmap() L1583 -> mmap_region() L1752 -> munmap_vma_range() ->
> do_munmap() -> __do_munmap() loop at 2891 to unlock the range.
> 
> Would you like me to add this call chain to the changelog?

Yes please, in a simplified form.

I suggest something like the following patch description:

"do_mmap(MAP_FIXED) will already unlock pages via munmap_vma_range(). We
can remove the superfluous manual unlocking in remap_file_pages().

Note that the manual unlocking is even incorrect, as it might miss
unlocking some pages - no harm done.
"

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists