Re: [PATCH v4 18/49] mlock: Convert mlock to vma iterator

[Liam R. Howlett]

* Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> [230711 10:09]:
> On 20/01/2023 16:26, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Use the vma iterator so that the iterator can be invalidated or updated
> > to avoid each caller doing so.
> 
> Hi,


Hello!

> 
> I've bisected 2 mm selftest regressions back to this patch, so hoping someone can help debug and fix? The failures are reproducible on x86_64 and arm64.

Thanks!  That is a big help.  Where did you start your bisection?  I
assume 6.4?

> 
> 
> mlock-random-test:
> 
> $ ./run_kselftest.sh -t mm:mlock-random-test
> TAP version 13
> 1..1
> # selftests: mm: mlock-random-test
> mlock() failure at |0xaaaaaaab52d0(131072)| mlock:|0xaaaaaaacc65d(26551)|
> not ok 1 selftests: mm: mlock-random-test # exit=255
> 
> This mallocs a buffer then loops 100 times, trying to mlock random parts of it. After this patch, the test fails after a variable number of iterations; mlock() returns ENOMEM. If I explicitly munlock at the end of each loop, it works.
> 
> 
> mlock2-tests:
> 
> $ ./run_kselftest.sh -t mm:mlock2-tests
> TAP version 13
> 1..1
> # selftests: mm: mlock2-tests
> munlock(): Cannot allocate memory
> munlock(): Cannot allocate memory
> not ok 1 selftests: mm: mlock2-tests # exit=2
> 
> Here, a 3 page buffer is mlock2()ed, then the middle page is munlocked. Finally the whole 3 page range is munlocked, and after this patch it fails with ENOMEM. If I modify the test to split the final munlock into 2, one for the first page and one for the last, the test passes.
> 
> 
> Immediately prior to this patch (2286a6914c77 "mm: change mprotect_fixup to vma iterator"), both tests pass.
> 
> From a quick scan of the man page, I don't think it explicitly says that its ok to call mlock/munlock on already locked/unlocked pages, but it's certainly a change of behavior and the tests notice, so I'm guessing this wasn't intentional?
> 
> I'm not familiar with this code so it's not obvious to me exactly what the problem is, but I'm hoping someone can help debug?

I think I see the issue and I'm working on a fix. I appreciate the
analysis and report, it really helps narrow things down.

Regards,
Liam