Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:04:04 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+7ca4b2719dc742b8d0a4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] WARNING in unmap_page_range (2)
Message-ID: <ZVZ1tLoOpRJu5n3g@x1n>
References: <000000000000b0e576060a30ee3b@google.com>
 <20231115140006.cc7de06f89b1f885f4583af0@linux-foundation.org>
 <a8349273-c512-4d23-bf85-5812d2a007d1@redhat.com>
 <ZVZYvleasZddv-TD@x1n>
 <6308590a-d958-4ecc-a478-ba088cf7984d@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6308590a-d958-4ecc-a478-ba088cf7984d@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 07:13:44PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > It should be fine, as:
> > 
> > static void make_uffd_wp_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > 			     unsigned long addr, pte_t *pte)
> > {
> > 	pte_t ptent = ptep_get(pte);
> > 
> > #ifndef CONFIG_USERFAULTFD_
> > 
> > 	if (pte_present(ptent)) {
> > 		pte_t old_pte;
> > 
> > 		old_pte = ptep_modify_prot_start(vma, addr, pte);
> > 		ptent = pte_mkuffd_wp(ptent);
> > 		ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, addr, pte, old_pte, ptent);
> > 	} else if (is_swap_pte(ptent)) {
> > 		ptent = pte_swp_mkuffd_wp(ptent);
> > 		set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> > 	} else {                                      <----------------- this must be pte_none() already
> > 		set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte,
> > 			   make_pte_marker(PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP));
> > 	}
> > }
> 
> Indeed! Is pte_swp_mkuffd_wp() reasonable for pte markers? I rememebr that
> we don't support multiple markers yet, so it might be good enough.

Not really that reasonable, but nothing harmful either that I see so far;
the current code handles any pte marker without caring any of those hint
bits.

I can also reproduce this syzbot error easily with !UFFD config on x86.
Let me send the patchset to fix current known issues first.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu