Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220712130542.18836-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <20220713102357.8328614813db01b569650ffd@linux-foundation.org>
 <a47922cf-eb30-1ad9-fc96-1896254564ef@huawei.com> <20220716160629.d065828c84ad2423c10f7733@linux-foundation.org>
 <0dcf8902-b14a-860a-cb66-46e57b6d14a9@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <0dcf8902-b14a-860a-cb66-46e57b6d14a9@huawei.com>
From:   Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:07:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHvVcjpgJL1chHQwBUu5Dqj8Lr5fvw_S3O1=XCZF1CyvcSTEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid corrupting page->mapping in hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:25 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2022/7/17 7:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:59:53 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022/7/14 1:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 21:05:42 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE case with a non-shared VMA, pages in the page
> >>>> cache are installed in the ptes. But hugepage_add_new_anon_rmap is called
> >>>> for them mistakenly because they're not vm_shared. This will corrupt the
> >>>> page->mapping used by page cache code.
> >>>
> >>> Well that sounds bad.  And theories on why this has gone unnoticed for
> >>> over a year?  I assume this doesn't have coverage in our selftests?
> >>
> >> As discussed in another thread, when minor fault handling is proposed, only
> >> VM_SHARED vma is expected to be supported
> >
> > So...  do we feel that this fix should be backported?  And if so, is
> > there a suitable commit for the Fixes:?
>
> I tend to backport this fix. And I think the Fixes tag in this patch should be suitable,
> i.e. Fixes: f619147104c8 ("userfaultfd: add UFFDIO_CONTINUE ioctl").

Agreed, it is worth backporting.

>
> Thanks.
>
> > .
> >
>