Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid corrupting page->mapping in hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte

[Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>]

On 2022/7/14 23:52, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 05:59:53PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/7/14 1:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 21:05:42 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE case with a non-shared VMA, pages in the page
>>>> cache are installed in the ptes. But hugepage_add_new_anon_rmap is called
>>>> for them mistakenly because they're not vm_shared. This will corrupt the
>>>> page->mapping used by page cache code.
>>>
>>> Well that sounds bad.  And theories on why this has gone unnoticed for
>>> over a year?  I assume this doesn't have coverage in our selftests?
>>
>> As discussed in another thread, when minor fault handling is proposed, only
>> VM_SHARED vma is expected to be supported. And the test case is also missing.
> 
> Yes, after this patch applied it'll be great to have the test case covering
> private mappings too.
> 
> It's just that it'll be a bit more than setting test_uffdio_minor=1 for
> "hugetlb" test.  In hugetlb_allocate_area() we'll need to setup the alias
> too for !shared case, it'll be a bit challenging since currently we're
> using anonymous hugetlb mappings for private tests, and I'm not sure
> whether we'll need the hugetlb path back just like what we have with
> "hugetlb_shared" tests.

I'm afraid not. When minor fault handling is proposed, only VM_SHARED vma is
expected to be supported. It seems it's hard to image how one might benefit
from using it with a private mapping. But I'm not sure as I'm still a layman
in userfaultfd now. Any further suggestions?

> 

Thanks!