Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:48:05 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        cai@lca.pw, rppt@linux.ibm.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        william.kucharski@oracle.com,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, dump_page: do not crash with bad
 compound_mapcount()
Message-ID: <20200807164805.xm4ingj4crdiemol@box>
References: <20200804214807.169256-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
 <20200807143504.4kudtd4xeoqaroqg@box>
 <20200807151029.GE17456@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200807151029.GE17456@casper.infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:35:04PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 02:48:07PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > If a compound page is being split while dump_page() is being run on that
> > > page, we can end up calling compound_mapcount() on a page that is no
> > > longer compound. This leads to a crash (already seen at least once in
> > > the field), due to the VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() assertion inside
> > > compound_mapcount().
> 
> [...]
> > > +static inline int head_mapcount(struct page *head)
> > > +{
> > 
> > Do we want VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHead(head), head) here?
> 
> Well, no.  That was the point of the bug report -- by the time we called
> compound_mapcount, the page was no longer a head page.

Right. VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(head), head)?

> > > A similar problem is possible, via compound_pincount() instead of
> > > compound_mapcount().
> > > 
> > > In order to avoid this kind of crash, make dump_page() slightly more
> > > robust, by providing a pair of simpler routines that don't contain
> > > assertions: head_mapcount() and head_pincount().
> > 
> > I find naming misleading. head_mapcount() and head_pincount() sounds like
> > a mapcount/pincount of the head page, but it's not. It's mapcount and
> > pincount of the compound page.
> 
> OK, point taken.  I might go for head_compound_mapcount()?  Or as I
> originally suggested, just opencoding it like we do in __page_mapcount().

I'm fine either way.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov