Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: fix move_pages_pte() splitting folio under RCU read lock

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:16 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 8:58 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:00 AM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 06:56:07PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > @@ -1078,9 +1078,14 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> > > >
> > > >               /* at this point we have src_folio locked */
> > > >               if (folio_test_large(src_folio)) {
> > > > +                     /* split_folio() can block */
> > > > +                     pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte);
> > > > +                     pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte);
> > > > +                     src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
> > > >                       err = split_folio(src_folio);
> > > >                       if (err)
> > > >                               goto out;
> > > > +                     goto retry;
> > > >               }
> > >
> > > Do we also need to clear src_folio and src_folio_pte?  If the folio is a
> > > thp, I think it means it's pte mapped here. Then after the split we may
> > > want to fetch the small folio after the split, not the head one?
> >
> > I think we need to re-fetch the src_folio only if the src_addr falls
> > into a non-head page. Looking at the __split_huge_page(), the head
> > page is skipped in the last loop, so I think it should stay valid.
> > That said, maybe it's just an implementation detail of the
> > __split_huge_page() and I should not rely on that and refetch anyway?
>
> I'll post a v2 with this fix and re-fetching the folio
> unconditionally. We also don't need to reset src_folio_pte value
> because it's used only if src_folio is not NULL.

Posted at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240102233256.1077959-1-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/

> Thanks for catching this, Peter!
>
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Xu
> > >