linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] madvise: not use mapcount() against large folio for sharing check

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]

Date:   Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:26:49 +0800
From:   "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <minchan@...nel.org>,
        <willy@...radead.org>, <david@...hat.com>, <ryan.roberts@....com>,
        <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] madvise: not use mapcount() against large
 folio for sharing check



On 7/22/2023 2:57 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:41 AM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> The commit
>> 07e8c82b5eff ("madvise: convert madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to
>> use folios") replaced the page_mapcount() with folio_mapcount() to
>> check whether the folio is shared by other mapping.
>>
>> But it's not correct for large folio. folio_mapcount() returns the
>> total mapcount of large folio which is not suitable to detect whether
>> the folio is shared.
>>
>> Use folio_estimated_sharers() which returns a estimated number of
>> shares. That means it's not 100% correct. But it should be OK for
>> madvise case here.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
> 
> Fixes:
> Cc: stable
OK

> 
>> @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>                 folio = pfn_folio(pmd_pfn(orig_pmd));
>>
>>                 /* Do not interfere with other mappings of this folio */
>> -               if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
>> +               if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
> 
> Strictly speaking, this isn't a bug. But it may be ok to include it in
> the same patch.
OK. I will drop the change for pmd.

> 
>>                         goto huge_unlock;
>>
>>                 if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>> @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>                 if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>                         int err;
>>
>> -                       if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
>> +                       if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
>>                                 break;
>>                         if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>                                 break;
>> @@ -682,7 +682,7 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> 
> What about madvise_free_huge_pmd()? Should it be changed as well so
> that it's consistent with the first change? Either change both or neither.
> 
>>                 if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>                         int err;
>>
>> -                       if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
>> +                       if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
> 
> This is another bug fix and should be in a separate patch.
OK. Will split to two patches.

> 
>>                                 break;
>>                         if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>>                                 break;
> 
> Please send two separate fixes, and then:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Thanks a lot. I will drop the mapcount() change for pmd and sent to patches
for madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() and madvise_free_pte_range().


Regards
Yin, Fengwei