Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using folio_pte_batch()

[David Hildenbrand]

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.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb