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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1625493432-9945-1-git-send-email-wangqing@vivo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1625493432-9945-1-git-send-email-wangqing@vivo.com>
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:32:56 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtUbX+TAx-7RJ4ZpoNLHDa9mp6k+DBqHaYiLjhSJokh3Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Phishing Risk] [External] [PATCH] mm: add GFP_ATOMIC flag after local_lock_irqsave
To:     Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:57 PM Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com> wrote:
>
> Use GFP_ATOMIC when local_lock_irqsave in __alloc_pages_bulk
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+e45919db2eab5e837646@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>
> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index d6e94cc..3016ba5
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -5309,7 +5309,7 @@ unsigned long __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
>                 }
>                 nr_account++;
>
> -               prep_new_page(page, 0, gfp, 0);
> +               prep_new_page(page, 0, gfp | GFP_ATOMIC, 0);

Hi Wang Qing,

I didn't get the point here. IIUC, prep_new_page() will not allocate
memory. So why do we need GFP_ATOMIC? What I missed here?

Thanks.

>                 if (page_list)
>                         list_add(&page->lru, page_list);
>                 else
> --
> 2.7.4
>