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, 16 May 2023 18:51:53 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: userfaultfd: avoid passing an invalid range to
 vma_merge()
Message-ID: <ZGQJCaZiPDjYS8w4@x1n>
References: <20230515193232.67552-1-lstoakes@gmail.com>
 <ZGKjvceDfpKMxtfb@x1n>
 <bcfb0376-ccf4-4467-9da5-8ae6f1c86876@lucifer.local>
 <20abea10-5307-498b-b9df-8f0b2fed1701@lucifer.local>
 <ZGOcAOFOjx3XPGqO@x1n>
 <9739133c-3ee7-4e94-a6a8-783045a50ac6@lucifer.local>
 <ZGPn00ZqqQqdmk2e@x1n>
 <e90c2b38-805b-4df1-abdd-8ee460b12b72@lucifer.local>
 <ZGP4KSw/yD5ItTYu@x1n>
 <20230516223830.64ege7magdtx3zsr@revolver>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230516223830.64ege7magdtx3zsr@revolver>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 06:38:30PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > It seems to me what you're trying to explain is we shouldn't handle any
> > split in vma_merge() so we should move cases 4 & 5 out of vma_merge().  If
> > we split first then merge, cases 4 & 5 will become case 2 & 3 after split.
> 
> We don't split in case 4 or 5 - we adjust the existing VMA limits.  We
> don't actually handle any splits in vma_merge().  I think splitting
> first would change 4 & 5 to 7 & 8?  2 & 3 would require a split and
> munmap, right?

Right, I referenced to the wrong numbers..  2 & 3 are when CUR (CCCC) is
empty and newly mapped in, if split happened it means CUR (CCCC) exists
which is 7 & 8 correspondingly.

> 
> > My question would be: if it worked perfect in the past few years and it
> > looks all good enough, why bother..
> 
> I suspect, but it's not clear (like all of this), that the other
> arguments to vma_merge() is ruling out this potential hazard I thought
> existed.

Some more elaborations on this one would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu