From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f70.google.com (mail-pg0-f70.google.com [74.125.83.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54FD6B0026 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f70.google.com with SMTP id c16so2035480pgv.8 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 1-v6sor1258535pln.97.2018.03.28.14.21.31 for (Google Transport Security); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:21:29 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/24] mm: protect mremap() against SPF hanlder In-Reply-To: <1fe7529a-947c-fdb2-12d2-b38bdd41bb04@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <1520963994-28477-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1520963994-28477-10-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1fe7529a-947c-fdb2-12d2-b38bdd41bb04@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Laurent Dufour Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox , benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexei Starovoitov , kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, Daniel Jordan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, Tim Chen , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote: > >> @@ -326,7 +336,10 @@ static unsigned long move_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > >> mremap_userfaultfd_prep(new_vma, uf); > >> arch_remap(mm, old_addr, old_addr + old_len, > >> new_addr, new_addr + new_len); > >> + if (vma != new_vma) > >> + vm_raw_write_end(vma); > >> } > >> + vm_raw_write_end(new_vma); > > > > Just do > > > > vm_raw_write_end(vma); > > vm_raw_write_end(new_vma); > > > > here. > > Are you sure ? we can have vma = new_vma done if (unlikely(err)) > Sorry, what I meant was do if (vma != new_vma) vm_raw_write_end(vma); vm_raw_write_end(new_vma); after the conditional. Having the locking unnecessarily embedded in the conditional has been an issue in the past with other areas of core code, unless you have a strong reason for it.