On 3/15/23 23:20, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:12:58PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> This effectively reverts d014cd7c1c35 ("mm, mremap: fix mremap()
>> expanding for vma's with vm_ops->close()"). After the recent changes,
>> vma_merge() is able to handle the expansion properly even when the vma
>> being expanded has a vm_ops->close operation, so we don't need to
>> special case it anymore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/mremap.c | 20 ++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
>> index 411a85682b58..65f5b545601e 100644
>> --- a/mm/mremap.c
>> +++ b/mm/mremap.c
>> @@ -1040,23 +1040,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mremap, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, old_len,
>> * vma (expand operation itself) and possibly also with
>> * the next vma if it becomes adjacent to the expanded
>> * vma and otherwise compatible.
>> - *
>> - * However, vma_merge() can currently fail due to
>> - * is_mergeable_vma() check for vm_ops->close (see the
>> - * comment there). Yet this should not prevent vma
>> - * expanding, so perform a simple expand for such vma.
>> - * Ideally the check for close op should be only done
>> - * when a vma would be actually removed due to a merge.
>> */
>> - if (!vma->vm_ops || !vma->vm_ops->close) {
>> - vma = vma_merge(&vmi, mm, vma, extension_start,
>> - extension_end, vma->vm_flags, vma->anon_vma,
>> - vma->vm_file, extension_pgoff, vma_policy(vma),
>> - vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx, anon_vma_name(vma));
>> - } else if (vma_expand(&vmi, vma, vma->vm_start,
>> - addr + new_len, vma->vm_pgoff, NULL)) {
>> - vma = NULL;
>> - }
>> + vma = vma_merge(&vmi, mm, vma, extension_start,
>> + extension_end, vma->vm_flags, vma->anon_vma,
>> + vma->vm_file, extension_pgoff, vma_policy(vma),
>> + vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx, anon_vma_name(vma));
>> if (!vma) {
>> vm_unacct_memory(pages);
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
>
> Good to eliminate this edge case! Do we have a self-test for this case to assert
> that the issue is fixed by this? I guess a little tricky due to the need for the
> the owning VMA to have ->close() specified.
Yeah that's the problem, it needs some specific setup, unlike the existing
tests.
> In any case, the changes you have made in the previous patch should ensure the
> edge case is no longer required, hence:-
>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
