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;
Message-ID: <623247f8-6b1d-b517-2053-6d5fb2cb418c@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 06:26:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH STABLE 5.10] mm/memory: add non-anonymous page check in
 the copy_present_page()
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Yuanzheng Song <songyuanzheng@huawei.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221024094911.3054769-1-songyuanzheng@huawei.com>
 <3823471f-6dda-256e-e082-718879c05449@google.com> <Y1nRiJ1LYB62uInn@x1n>
 <fffefe4-adce-a7d-23e0-9f8afc7ce6cf@google.com> <Y1qdY8oUlUvWl067@x1n>
 <8aad435-bdc6-816f-2fe4-efe53abd6e5@google.com> <Y1sMk30wS+1uH/hc@x1n>
 <432c4428-b6d4-f93-266-b920a854c3c@google.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <432c4428-b6d4-f93-266-b920a854c3c@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 28.10.22 03:32, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Reinstating Cc stable, which I removed just before the discussion settled.

Sorry for not reading the full thread before and considering Peters 
mail; I had to take short cuts :)

> 
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022, Peter Xu wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> After a re-read and 2nd thought, I think David has a valid point in that we
>> shouldn't have special handling of !anon pages on CoW during fork(),
>> because that seems to be against the fundamental concept of fork().
>>
>> So now I think I agree the !Anon original check does look a bit cleaner,
>> and also make fork() behavior matching with the old/new kernels, irrelevant
>> of the pin mess.
> 
> Thanks Peter.  So Yuanzheng's patch for 5.10 is exactly right.
> 
> Sorry for leading everyone astray: my mistake was to suppose that
> its !PageAnon check was simply to avoid the later BUG_ON(!anon_vma):
> whereas David and Peter now agree that it actually corrects the
> semantics for fork() on file pages.
> 
> I lift my hold on Yuanzheng's patch: nobody actually said "Acked-by",
> but I think the discussion and resolution have given better than that.
> (No 3rd thoughts please!)

Unless someone tells me why I am obviously wrong

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb