On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 07:13:44PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > It should be fine, as:
> >
> > static void make_uffd_wp_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > unsigned long addr, pte_t *pte)
> > {
> > pte_t ptent = ptep_get(pte);
> >
> > #ifndef CONFIG_USERFAULTFD_
> >
> > if (pte_present(ptent)) {
> > pte_t old_pte;
> >
> > old_pte = ptep_modify_prot_start(vma, addr, pte);
> > ptent = pte_mkuffd_wp(ptent);
> > ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, addr, pte, old_pte, ptent);
> > } else if (is_swap_pte(ptent)) {
> > ptent = pte_swp_mkuffd_wp(ptent);
> > set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> > } else { <----------------- this must be pte_none() already
> > set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte,
> > make_pte_marker(PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP));
> > }
> > }
>
> Indeed! Is pte_swp_mkuffd_wp() reasonable for pte markers? I rememebr that
> we don't support multiple markers yet, so it might be good enough.
Not really that reasonable, but nothing harmful either that I see so far;
the current code handles any pte marker without caring any of those hint
bits.
I can also reproduce this syzbot error easily with !UFFD config on x86.
Let me send the patchset to fix current known issues first.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
