+ get_maintainers.pl people for drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grumain.c
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 03:09:35PM GMT, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 01:01:43PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 01:08:27PM GMT, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Hi Linus,
> > >
> > > Commit 79a61cc3fc04 ("mm: avoid leaving partial pfn mappings around in
> > > error case") from Sep 11, 2024 (linux-next), leads to the following
> > > Smatch static checker warning:
> > >
> > > mm/memory.c:2709 remap_pfn_range_notrack()
> > > warn: sleeping in atomic context
> > >
> > > mm/memory.c
> > > 2696 int remap_pfn_range_notrack(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> > > 2697 unsigned long pfn, unsigned long size, pgprot_t prot)
> > > 2698 {
> > > 2699 int error = remap_pfn_range_internal(vma, addr, pfn, size, prot);
> > > 2700
> > > 2701 if (!error)
> > > 2702 return 0;
> > > 2703
> > > 2704 /*
> > > 2705 * A partial pfn range mapping is dangerous: it does not
> > > 2706 * maintain page reference counts, and callers may free
> > > 2707 * pages due to the error. So zap it early.
> > > 2708 */
> > > --> 2709 zap_page_range_single(vma, addr, size, NULL);
> > >
> > > The lru_add_drain() function at the start of zap_page_range_single() takes a
> > > mutext.
> >
> > Hm does it? I see a local lock, and some folio batch locking which are
> > local locks too?
>
> Ah... No it doesn't. It's the mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() which is
> a might_sleep() function. Sorry for the confusion.
OK so in conclusion it seems to be that Linus's commit introducing
zap_page_range_single() accidentally had smatch hit a might_sleep() via
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(), but it should, in theory, have fired
due to page table allocations invoking the page allocator that might sleep,
but didn't, because smatch misses the below might_alloc() path...
-> prepare_alloc_pages()
-> might_alloc()
-> might_sleep_if(gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
...as a result of get_zeroed_page() tripping it up *breathes*. :)
(please correct me if I am wrong here).
The preempt_disable() is introduced in commit fe5bb6b00c3a9 ("sgi-gru: misc
GRU cleanup") from... 2009, but it fixed it from the far far more broken
'disable preemption before taking a mutex' situation that existed before.
So fix seems to me to not invoke remap_pfn_range() with preemption disabled
and a mutex held? gru_fault() maintainers added for input...
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
