linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [mm?] WARNING in memory

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]

Message-ID: <E82638DD-9E5D-4C69-AA0F-7DDC0E3D109B@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 13:52:00 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
 "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>,
 syzbot <syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linmiaohe@...wei.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, nao.horiguchi@...il.com,
 syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] WARNING in memory_failure

On 24 Sep 2025, at 13:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:

>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I can think of is:
>>>> 0. split code always does a split to allowed minimal order,
>>>>      namely max(fs_min_order, order_from_caller);
>>>
>>> Wouldn't max mean "allowed maximum order" ?
>>>
>>> I guess what you mean is "split to this order or smaller" -- min?
>>
>> But LBS imposes a fs_min_order that is not 0. When a caller asks
>> to split to 0, folio split code needs to use fs_min_order instead of 0.
>> Thus the max.
>
> I'd say, the point is that if someone wants to split to 0 but that is impossible, then we should fail :)

I agree.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 1. if split order cannot reach to order_from_caller, it just return fails,
>>>>      so most of the caller will know about it;
>>>
>>> Yes, I think this would be the case here: if we cannot split to order-0, we can just fail right away.
>>>
>>>> 2. for LBS code, when it sees a split failure, it should check the resulting
>>>>      folio order against fs min_order. If the orders match, it regards it as
>>>>      a success.
>>>>
>>>> At least, most of the code does not need to be LBS aware. WDYT?
>>>
>>> Is my understand correct that it's either that the caller wants to
>>>
>>> (a) Split to order-0 -- no larger folio afterwards.
>>>
>>> (b) Split to smallest order possible, which might be the mapping min order.
>>
>> Right. IIRC, most of callers are (a), since folio split was originally
>> called by code that cannot handle THPs (now large folios). For (b),
>> I actually wonder if there exists such a caller.
>>
>>> If so, we could keep the interface simpler than allowing to specify arbitrary orders as request.
>>
>> We might just need (a), since there is no caller of (b) in kernel, except
>> split_folio_to_order() is used for testing. There might be future uses
>> when kernel wants to convert from THP to mTHP, but it seems that we are
>> not there yet.
>>
>
> Even better, then maybe selected interfaces could just fail if the min-order contradicts with the request to split to a non-larger (order-0) folio.

Yep. Let’s hear what Luis and Pankaj will say about this.

>
>>
>>
>> +Luis and Pankaj for their opinions on how LBS is going to use split folio
>> to any order.
>>
>> Hi Luis and Pankaj,
>>
>> It seems that bumping split folio order from 0 to mapping_min_folio_order()
>> instead of simply failing the split folio call gives surprises to some
>> callers and causes issues like the one reported by this email. I cannot think
>> of any situation where failing a folio split does not work. If LBS code
>> wants to split, it should supply mapping_min_folio_order(), right? Does
>> such caller exist?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Yan, Zi
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb


Best Regards,
Yan, Zi