linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using folio_pte

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: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:27:25 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 ryan.roberts@....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 03.06.24 17:08, Lance Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 10:56 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> 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().
>>
>> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
>> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
>> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
>> unfortunate.
> 
> Could I change folio_pte_batch() to take an unsigned long max_nr?

It might be more future proof; see my other mail, I think currently all 
is fine, because "end" is not the end of the VMA but the end of the PMD. 
Please double-check.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb