Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-199308-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:43:26 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, david@redhat.com,
	21cnbao@gmail.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, ziy@nvidia.com,
	fengwei.yin@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, libang.li@antgroup.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using
 folio_pte_batch()
Message-ID: <Zl3Wjh9_aGY8Xxm7@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240603140745.83880-1-ioworker0@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240603140745.83880-1-ioworker0@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
>  static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
>  		pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>  {
> -	unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> -	unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> +	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> +	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
problem entirely?

folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().