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;
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:11:19 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org, brauner@kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, p.raghav@samsung.com, da.gomez@samsung.com,
        a.manzanares@samsung.com, dave@stgolabs.net, yosryahmed@google.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] shmem: skip page split if we're not reclaiming
Message-ID: <ZD8HdxbwhUUGvmNC@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20230309230545.2930737-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20230309230545.2930737-5-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <cfaac1a4-20c6-bdd6-ff68-981e9a8858e@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cfaac1a4-20c6-bdd6-ff68-981e9a8858e@google.com>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 09:41:41PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 
> > In theory when info->flags & VM_LOCKED we should not be getting
> > shem_writepage() called so we should be verifying this with a
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(). Since we should not be swapping then best to ensure
> > we also don't do the folio split earlier too. So just move the check
> > early to avoid folio splits in case its a dubious call.
> > 
> > We also have a similar early bail when !total_swap_pages so just move
> > that earlier to avoid the possible folio split in the same situation.
> > 
> > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  mm/shmem.c | 10 ++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > index 68e9970baf1e..dfd995da77b4 100644
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> > @@ -1350,6 +1350,12 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> >  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!wbc->for_reclaim))
> >  		goto redirty;
> >  
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(info->flags & VM_LOCKED))
> > +		goto redirty;
> 
> Well, okay, I don't mind that.  But shall we take bets on how soon syzbot
> (hope it's not watching) will try flipping SHM_LOCK on while swapping out
> pages from a SHM segment, and hit that warning?  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I
> don't think any serialization prevents that.

I though that may be the case. Would such serialization be welcomed?

  Luis