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;
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 239/239] memfd: Use radix_tree_deref_slot_protected to avoid the warning.
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 06:20:39 +0100
Message-Id: <20191119051342.809188054@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191119051255.850204959@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20191119051255.850204959@linuxfoundation.org>
User-Agent: quilt/0.66
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>

The commit 391d4ee568b5 ("memfd: Fix locking when tagging pins")
introduces the following warning messages.

*WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in memfd_wait_for_pins*

It is because we still use radix_tree_deref_slot without read_rcu_lock.
We should use radix_tree_deref_slot_protected instead in the case.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 391d4ee568b5 ("memfd: Fix locking when tagging pins")
Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 mm/shmem.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2664,7 +2664,7 @@ static void shmem_tag_pins(struct addres
 
 	spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
 	radix_tree_for_each_slot(slot, &mapping->page_tree, &iter, start) {
-		page = radix_tree_deref_slot(slot);
+		page = radix_tree_deref_slot_protected(slot, &mapping->tree_lock);
 		if (!page || radix_tree_exception(page)) {
 			if (radix_tree_deref_retry(page)) {
 				slot = radix_tree_iter_retry(&iter);