On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:24:58 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/4/19 12:26 PM, zhong jiang wrote:
> > With the help of unsigned_lesser_than_zero.cocci. Unsigned 'nr_pages"'
> > compare with zero. And __get_user_pages_locked will return an long value.
> > Hence, Convert the long to compare with zero is feasible.
>
> It would be nicer if the parameter nr_pages was long again instead of unsigned
> long (note there are two variants of the function, so both should be changed).
>
> > Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Fixes: 932f4a630a69 ("mm/gup: replace get_user_pages_longterm() with FOLL_LONGTERM")
>
> (which changed long to unsigned long)
>
> AFAICS... stable shouldn't be needed as the only "risk" is that we goto
> check_again even when we fail, which should be harmless.
>
Really? If nr_pages gets a value of -EFAULT from the
__get_user_pages_locked() call, check_and_migrate_cma_pages() will go
berzerk?
And does __get_user_pages_locked() correctly handle a -ve errno
returned by __get_user_pages()? It's hard to see how...
