[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zl3Wjh9_aGY8Xxm7@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:43:26 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ryan.roberts@....com, david@...hat.com,
21cnbao@...il.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, ziy@...dia.com,
fengwei.yin@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, libang.li@...group.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using
folio_pte_batch()
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> {
> - unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> - unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> + unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes? Seems to me
that count becomes 0. Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
problem entirely?
folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists