On 2/22/24 20:27, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> [240222 13:56]:
>> * Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> [240222 11:56]:
>> This separates the check for potentially merging previous to a later
>> failure case. Would it be better to check:
>> if (curr && curr->vm_ops && curr->vm_ops->close)
>>
>> and not set merge_prev = true, ie we cannot merge with the predecessor?
Good suggestion, thanks!
>> That way we would exit as merge_prev == false.
>>
>> We would have the added benefit of not having to look at merge_prev &
>> merge_next case with this vm_ops->close in mind (case 1 and 6).. because
>> I'm pretty sure we can currently get to case 6 in this way:
>>
>> merge_prev = true
>> check for merge_next.. can_vma_merge_before(next...);
>> is_mergeable_vma(next.... , true);
>> if (true && next->vm_ops && next->vm_ops->close) /* Fine for next.. */
>>
>> Remove curr by case 6 without checking curr->vm_ops &&
>> curr->vm_ops->close
>>
>> If I am correct, then are we blaming the right commit?
It was bisected with no nondeterminism in the test, so yeah.
> I am not correct.
> The file check will ensure the same ops, so the file and ops must match.
> As long as both are checked on one VMA then it will work as required.
Right, otherwise we would have bigger issues even before the buggy commit,
we were never checking curr's vma_ops before.
>>
>> Perhaps we should just fail earlier when we find a curr with the close
>> ops?
>
> I'd rather fail earlier, but it's not a big deal.
Your suggestion will indeed result in a nicer and more obvious code, so will
do, thanks!
>>
>> > } else { /* case 5 */
>> > + err = dup_anon_vma(prev, curr, &anon_dup);
>> > adjust = curr;
>> > adj_start = (end - curr->vm_start);
>> > }
>> > --
>> > 2.43.1
>> >
