Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:29:27 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        youling257@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Linux 4.18-rc7
Message-ID: <20180731062927.hjknfcb2cj3bwd7b@kshutemo-mobl1>
References: <CA+55aFxpFefwVdTGVML99PSFUqwpJXPx5LVCA3D=g2t2_QLNsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMi1Hd0fJuAgP09_KkbjyGwszOXmxcPybKyBxP3U1y5JUqxxSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180730130134.yvn5tcmoavuxtwt5@kshutemo-mobl1>
 <CA+55aFwxwCPZs=h5wy-5PELwfBVuTETm+wuZB5cM2SDoXJi68g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.1807301410470.4805@eggly.anvils>
 <CA+55aFx3qR1FW0T3na25NrwLZAvpOdUEUJa879CnaJT2ZPfhkg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFx3qR1FW0T3na25NrwLZAvpOdUEUJa879CnaJT2ZPfhkg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:53 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with reverting -rc7's vma_is_anonymous() series.
> 
> I don't think we need to revert the whole series: I think the rest are
> all fairly obvious cleanups, and shouldn't really have any semantic
> changes.
> 
> It's literally only that last patch in the series that then changes
> that meaning of "vm_ops". And I don't really _mind_ that last step
> either, but since we don't know exactly what it was that it broke, and
> we're past rc7, I don't think we really have any option but the revert
> it.
> 
> And if we revert it, I think we need to just remove the
> VM_BUG_ON_VMA() that it was supposed to fix. Because I do think that
> it is quite likely that the real bug is that overzealous BUG_ON(),
> since I can't see any reason why anonymous mappings should be special
> there.
> 
> But I'm certainly also ok with re-visiting that commit later.  I just
> think that right _now_ the above is my preferred plan.
> 
> Kirill?

Considering the timing, I'm okay with reverting the last patch with
dropping the VM_BUG_ON_VMA().

But in the end I would like to see strong vma_is_anonymous().

The VM_BUG_ON_VMA() is only triggerable by the test case because
vma_is_anonymous() false-positive in fault path and we get anon-THP
allocated in file-private mapping.

I don't see immediately how this may trigger other crashes.
But it definitely looks wrong.

> > I'm all for deleting that VM_BUG_ON_VMA() in zap_pmd_range(), it was
> > just a compromise with those who wanted to keep something there;
> > I don't think we even need a WARN_ON_ONCE() now.
> 
> So to me it looks like a historical check that simply doesn't
> "normally" trigger, but there's no reason I can see why we should care
> about the case it tests against.

I'll think more on what could go wrong with __split_huge_pmd() called on
anon-THP page without mmap_sem(). It's not yet clear cut to me.


-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov