[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a47922cf-eb30-1ad9-fc96-1896254564ef@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:59:53 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid corrupting page->mapping in
hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte
On 2022/7/14 1:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 21:05:42 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>> In MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE case with a non-shared VMA, pages in the page
>> cache are installed in the ptes. But hugepage_add_new_anon_rmap is called
>> for them mistakenly because they're not vm_shared. This will corrupt the
>> page->mapping used by page cache code.
>
> Well that sounds bad. And theories on why this has gone unnoticed for
> over a year? I assume this doesn't have coverage in our selftests?
As discussed in another thread, when minor fault handling is proposed, only
VM_SHARED vma is expected to be supported. And the test case is also missing.
Thanks.
>
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -6038,7 +6038,7 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
>> if (!huge_pte_none_mostly(huge_ptep_get(dst_pte)))
>> goto out_release_unlock;
>>
>> - if (vm_shared) {
>> + if (page_in_pagecache) {
>> page_dup_file_rmap(page, true);
>> } else {
>> ClearHPageRestoreReserve(page);
>> --
>> 2.23.0
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists