[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9E046323-740A-434A-8B60-B8A32D0955C0@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 14:48:11 -0500
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (arm)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: 是参差 <shicenci@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linmiaohe@...wei.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING in memory_failure() at include/linux/huge_mm.h:635
triggered
On 4 Feb 2026, at 14:18, David Hildenbrand (arm) wrote:
> On 2/4/26 18:41, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 4 Feb 2026, at 12:34, Zi Yan wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Feb 2026, at 12:23, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the C repro above, syzbot opened a dev "/dev/sg#" and did mmap on it.
>>>> Is it a device driver issue?
>>>
>>> OK, it is CONFIG_CHR_DEV_SG. And the driver allocates a compound page at[1].
>>> Since we initialize folio fields in prep_compound_page(), it becomes a folio
>>> when it is inserted into a VMA.
>>
>> More details:
>> later at sg_vma_fault(), the driver just handles a page fault by supplying
>> a subpage from a pre-allocated compound page[3]. We then get a large folio
>> without !CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE.
>
> We can identify such non-folio (but compound) things by looking at PG_large_rmappable IIRC.
What do you mean? Changing memory failure code to only handle large_rmappable?
large_rmappable is a folio flag, memory failure code should see such
non-folio but compound things to begin with, IMHO.
I think we need to be able to tell between raw page (compound or not),
mappable page (compound or not, especially for those used with vm_insert_*),
and folio.
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists