linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/huge_memory: do not change split_huge

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7A31812E-7AC3-4F0F-B813-9C6940D952F4@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:57:08 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linmiaohe@...wei.com, jane.chu@...cle.com, kernel@...kajraghav.com,
 syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
 syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 mcgrof@...nel.org, nao.horiguchi@...il.com,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>,
 Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>,
 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
 Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/huge_memory: do not change split_huge_page*()
 target order silently.

On 21 Oct 2025, at 11:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> On 17.10.25 03:36, Zi Yan wrote:
>> Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS)
>> can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might
>> not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a
>> folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of
>> split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio.
>> This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory
>> failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have
>> order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order
>> folios and give warnings.
>>
>> Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order.
>> Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added
>> new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
>>
>> Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks")
>> [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and
>> also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory
>> than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel
>> warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.]
>> Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
>> ---
>
> With Lorenzos comments addressed, this looks good to me, thanks for taking care of this!

Just to be clear, I do not need to respin a new version of this, since all
Lorenzo’s comments are addressed in my reply except the changelog one, right?

>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>
> -- 
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi