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:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:53:55 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: Rework return value for copy_one_pte()
Message-ID: <20200922165354.GG11679@redhat.com>
References: <20200921211744.24758-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20200921211744.24758-4-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20200922100840.GA11679@redhat.com>
 <20200922101815.GB11679@redhat.com>
 <20200922153612.GF19098@xz-x1>
 <20200922154845.GE11679@redhat.com>
 <20200922160330.GH19098@xz-x1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200922160330.GH19098@xz-x1>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 09/22, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:48:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > However since I didn't change this logic in this patch, it probably means this
> > > bug is also in the original code before this series...  I'm thinking maybe I
> > > should prepare a standalone patch to clear the swp_entry_t and cc stable.
> >
> > Well, if copy_one_pte(src_pte) hits a swap entry and returns entry.val != 0, then
> > pte_none(*src_pte) is not possible after restart? This means that copy_one_pte()
> > will be called at least once.
>
> Note that we've released the page table locks, so afaict the old swp entry can
> be gone under us when we go back to the "do" loop... :)

But how?

I am just curious, I don't understand this code enough.

Oleg.