On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 02:36:38PM +0800, Chuanhua Han wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2024年7月29日周一 11:51写道：
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:46:17PM +1200, Barry Song wrote:
> > > - folio = vma_alloc_folio(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, 0,
> > > - vma, vmf->address, false);
> > > + folio = alloc_swap_folio(vmf);
> > > page = &folio->page;
> >
> > This is no longer correct. You need to set 'page' to the precise page
> > that is being faulted rather than the first page of the folio. It was
> > fine before because it always allocated a single-page folio, but now it
> > must use folio_page() or folio_file_page() (whichever has the correct
> > semantics for you).
> >
> > Also you need to fix your test suite to notice this bug. I suggest
> > doing that first so that you know whether you've got the calculation
> > correct.
>
> >
> >
> This is no problem now, we support large folios swapin as a whole, so
> the head page is used here instead of the page that is being faulted.
> You can also refer to the current code context, now support large
> folios swapin as a whole, and previously only support small page
> swapin is not the same.
You have completely failed to understand the problem. Let's try it this
way:
We take a page fault at address 0x123456789000.
If part of a 16KiB folio, that's page 1 of the folio at 0x123456788000.
If you now map page 0 of the folio at 0x123456789000, you've
given the user the wrong page! That looks like data corruption.
The code in
if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_swapcache(folio)) {
as Barry pointed out will save you -- but what if those conditions fail?
What if the mmap has been mremap()ed and the folio now crosses a PMD
boundary? mk_pte() will now be called on the wrong page.
