On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:54:42PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> [230707 12:45]:
> > * Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [230707 11:55]:
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 02:51:35PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > > > commit 0503ea8f5ba73eb3ab13a81c1eefbaf51405385a upstream.
> > > >
> > > > This was inadvertently fixed during the removal of __vma_adjust().
> > > >
> > > > When __vma_adjust() is adjusting next with a negative value (pushing
> > > > vma->vm_end lower), there would be two writes to the maple tree. The
> > > > first write is unnecessary and uses all allocated nodes in the maple
> > > > state. The second write is necessary but will need to allocate nodes
> > > > since the first write has used the allocated nodes. This may be a
> > > > problem as it may not be safe to allocate at this time, such as a low
> > > > memory situation. Fix the issue by avoiding the first write and only
> > > > write the adjusted "next" VMA.
> > >
> > > Are you sure this is the same git id? The one you reference above is
> > > _VERY_ different from your 2 line change below.
> > >
> > > And the changelog text is not the same.
> >
> > Yes, but I am not sure I've indicated what happened correctly.
> >
> > The bug exists in the older __vma_adjust() function, but I removed
> > __vma_adjust() and inadvertently fixed the bug. So the bug doesn't
> > exist upstream *because* of that commit:
> >
> > 0503ea8f5ba7 ("mm/mmap: remove __vma_adjust()")
> >
> > My comment after the commit id indicates what happened, but the
> > documentation wasn't clear to me on how to specify what happened.
> >
> > Does this answer your question?
>
> Friendly ping on this one?
Now queued up, thanks.
greg k-h
