[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9DB4F0AA-F088-4EBF-A14C-07FDC3F99825@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 20:34:25 +0000
From: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shmem: Update folio if shmem_replace_page() updates the
page
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
> On Aug 2, 2022, at 21:18, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 05:46:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 05:25:18 +0100 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> If we allocate a new page, we need to make sure that our folio matches
>>> that new page. This will be solved by changing shmem_replace_page()
>>> to shmem_replace_folio(), but this is the minimal fix.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>> @@ -1771,6 +1771,7 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>>>
>>> if (shmem_should_replace_folio(folio, gfp)) {
>>> error = shmem_replace_page(&page, gfp, info, index);
>>> + folio = page_folio(page);
>>> if (error)
>>> goto failed;
>>> }
>>
>> What are the user-visible runtime effects of the bug?
>>
>> Should we backport this into 5.19.X?
>
> Definitely should be backported. The next line not visible in this
> patch context says:
>
> error = shmem_add_to_page_cache(folio, mapping, index,
> swp_to_radix_entry(swap), gfp,
> charge_mm);
>
> so if we do end up in this path, we store the wrong page in the
> shmem inode's page cache, and I would rather imagine that data
> corruption ensues.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists