On 5/26/21 4:52 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
>
> When memory_failure() or soft_offline_page() is called on a tail page of
> some hugetlb page, "BUG: unable to handle page fault" error can be
> triggered.
>
> remove_hugetlb_page() dereferences page->lru, so it's assumed that the
> page points to a head page, but one of the caller,
> dissolve_free_huge_page(), provides remove_hugetlb_page() with 'page'
> which could be a tail page. So pass 'head' to it, instead.
>
> Fixes: 6eb4e88a6d27 ("hugetlb: create remove_hugetlb_page() to separate functionality")
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git v5.13-rc3/mm/hugetlb.c v5.13-rc3_patched/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 95918f410c0f..470f7b5b437e 100644
> --- v5.13-rc3/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ v5.13-rc3_patched/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1793,7 +1793,7 @@ int dissolve_free_huge_page(struct page *page)
> SetPageHWPoison(page);
> ClearPageHWPoison(head);
> }
> - remove_hugetlb_page(h, page, false);
> + remove_hugetlb_page(h, head, false);
> h->max_huge_pages--;
> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> update_and_free_page(h, head);
>
I believe we have the same problem later in the routine when calling
add_hugetlb_page()?
If so, should we combine the changes? Or, do we need two patches as
the bugs were introduced with different commits?
--
Mike Kravetz
