Re: could you clarify mm/mempolicy: fix !vma in new_vma_page()

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

On Wed 08-01-14 08:56:44, Bob Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
> > On Tue 07-01-14 11:22:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 07-01-14 13:29:31, Bob Liu wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
> >> > > On Mon 06-01-14 20:45:54, Bob Liu wrote:
> >> > > [...]
> >> > >>  544         if (PageAnon(page)) {
> >> > >>  545                 struct anon_vma *page__anon_vma = page_anon_vma(page);
> >> > >>  546                 /*
> >> > >>  547                  * Note: swapoff's unuse_vma() is more efficient with this
> >> > >>  548                  * check, and needs it to match anon_vma when KSM is active.
> >> > >>  549                  */
> >> > >>  550                 if (!vma->anon_vma || !page__anon_vma ||
> >> > >>  551                     vma->anon_vma->root != page__anon_vma->root)
> >> > >>  552                         return -EFAULT;
> >> > >>  553         } else if (page->mapping && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_NONLINEAR)) {
> >> > >>  554                 if (!vma->vm_file ||
> >> > >>  555                     vma->vm_file->f_mapping != page->mapping)
> >> > >>  556                         return -EFAULT;
> >> > >>  557         } else
> >> > >>  558                 return -EFAULT;
> >> > >>
> >> > >> That's the "other conditions" and the reason why we can't use
> >> > >> BUG_ON(!vma) in new_vma_page().
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry, I wasn't clear with my question. I was interested in which of
> >> > > these triggered and why only for hugetlb pages?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Sorry I didn't analyse the root cause. They are several checks in
> >> > page_address_in_vma() so I think it might be not difficult to hit one
> >> > of them.
> >>
> >> I would be really curious when anon_vma or f_mapping would be out of
> >> sync, that's why I've asked in the first place.
> >>
> >> > For example, if the page was mapped to vma by nonlinear
> >> > mapping?
> >>
> >> Hmm, ok !private shmem/hugetlbfs might be remapped as non-linear.
> >
> > OK, it didn't let go away from my head so I had to check. hugetlbfs
> > cannot be remmaped as non-linear because it is missing its vm_ops is
> > missing remap_pages implementation. So this case is impossible for these
> > pages. So at least the PageHuge part of the patch is bogus AFAICS.
> >
> > We still have shmem and even then I am curious whether we are doing the
> > right thing. The loop is inteded to handle range spanning multiple VMAs
> > (as per 3ad33b2436b54 (Migration: find correct vma in new_vma_page()))
> > and it doesn't seem to be VM_NONLINEAR aware. It will always fail for
> > shared shmem and so we always fallback to task/system default mempolicy.
> > Whether somebody uses mempolicy on VM_NONLINEAR mappings is hard to
> > tell. I am not familiar with this feature much.
> >
> > That being said. The BUG_ON(!vma) was bogus for VM_NONLINEAR cases.
> > The changed code could keep it for hugetlbfs path because we shouldn't
> > see NULL vma there AFAICS.
> >
> 
> Sounds reasonable, but as your said we'd better find out the root
> cause before making any changes.
> Do you think below debug info is enough? If yes, then we can ask Sasha
> help us having a test.

If I was debugging this I would simply add printk into page_address_in_vma
error paths.

Anyway, I think that at least hugetlbfs part should be reverted because
it might paper over real bugs. Although the migration would fail for
such hugetlb page we should catch that a weird page was tried to be
migrated. What about the patch below?
---