On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 04:56:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> > > +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> > > @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> > > static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> > > pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> > > {
> > > - unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > > - unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> > > + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> > > + unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
> > This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> > system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes? Seems to me
> > that count becomes 0. Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> > problem entirely?
> >
> > folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> > case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
>
> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
> unfortunate.
You did include:
VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);
so at the least we have a userspace-triggerable warning.
