[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3UQCmlnQXfKhbyE@x1n>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 11:30:02 -0500
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>,
Manish Mishra <manish.mishra@...anix.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/47] hugetlb: don't set PageUptodate for
UFFDIO_CONTINUE
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 04:36:17PM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> This is how it should have been to begin with. It would be very bad if
> we actually set PageUptodate with a UFFDIO_CONTINUE, as UFFDIO_CONTINUE
> doesn't actually set/update the contents of the page, so we would be
> exposing a non-zeroed page to the user.
>
> The reason this change is being made now is because UFFDIO_CONTINUEs on
> subpages definitely shouldn't set this page flag on the head page.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 1a7dc7b2e16c..650761cdd2f6 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -6097,7 +6097,10 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> * preceding stores to the page contents become visible before
> * the set_pte_at() write.
> */
> - __SetPageUptodate(page);
> + if (!is_continue)
> + __SetPageUptodate(page);
> + else
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(!PageUptodate(page), page);
Yeah the old code looks wrong, I'm just wondering whether we can 100%
guarantee this for hugetlb. E.g. for shmem that won't hold when we
uffd-continue on a not used page (e.g. by an over-sized fallocate()).
Another safer approach is simply fail the ioctl if !uptodate, but if you're
certain then WARN_ON_ONCE sounds all good too. At least I did have a quick
look on hugetlb fallocate() and pages will be uptodate immediately.
>
> /* Add shared, newly allocated pages to the page cache. */
> if (vm_shared && !is_continue) {
> --
> 2.38.0.135.g90850a2211-goog
>
>
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists