Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm/madvise: handle MADV_{HWPOISON,SOFT_OFFLINE} from madvise_unlock()

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

+cc Naresh, Arnd for another reports/discussion of the same issue [0] while
lore/lei is broken.

Hi,

Lore breaking means I missed this :) thankfully you cc'd me (_this_ is why I am
so adament about people following get_maintainer.pl procedure btw) so I was able
to now notice + reply :)

This is totally my bad for missing this on review, so mea culpa.

[0]:https://lwn.net/ml/linux-mm/CA+G9fYt5QwJ4_F8fJj7jx9_0Le9kOVSeG38ox9qnKqwsrDdvHQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:32:01PM -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> madvise_lock() does nothing for MADV_HWPOSION and MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE
> behavior, but madvise_unlock() does mmap_lock unlocking regardless of
> the behavior.  Commit 948a0a9ea070 ("mm/madvise: split out mmap locking
> operations for madvise()") in mm-unstable, which introduced the wrong
> function didn't cause a real problem because do_madvise() was not
> calling madvise_unlock() for the behavior.
>
> Later, commit f19c9d7b57cf ("mm/madvise: split out madvise() behavior
> execution") in mm-unstable made do_madvise() to call madvise_unlock()
> even for the two behaviors.  As a result, the kernel tries to unlock
> unlocked mmap_lock.
>
> Fix the issue by handling the two behaviors in madvise_unlock().  For
> the two behaviors, do nothing but just return.  Also remove an
> unnecessary blank line in madvise_lock().
>
> Technically speaking this patch fixes commit f19c9d7b57cf ("mm/madvise:
> split out madvise() behavior execution").  But since the broken commit
> is not in the mainline yet, squashing this fix into commit 948a0a9ea070
> ("mm/madvise: split out mmap locking operations for madvise()") would
> make more sense, so adding Fixes: tag with it.
>
> Fixes: 948a0a9ea070 ("mm/madvise: split out mmap locking operations for madvise()") # mm-unstable
> Reported-by: "Lai, Yi" <yi1.lai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/Z6rgiVp7221r4JZ5@ly-workstation
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/madvise.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> index b5ef8e03d8b0..b8969457f3ef 100644
> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -1577,7 +1577,6 @@ int madvise_set_anon_name(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
>
>  static int madvise_lock(struct mm_struct *mm, int behavior)
>  {
> -
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
>  	if (behavior == MADV_HWPOISON || behavior == MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE)
>  		return 0;
> @@ -1595,6 +1594,11 @@ static int madvise_lock(struct mm_struct *mm, int behavior)
>
>  static void madvise_unlock(struct mm_struct *mm, int behavior)
>  {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> +	if (behavior == MADV_HWPOISON || behavior == MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE)
> +		return;
> +#endif

I agree this fixes the issue but this is horrible. let's abstract this please
rather than doing the same crap that already existed, only now twice.

> +
>  	if (madvise_need_mmap_write(behavior))
>  		mmap_write_unlock(mm);
>  	else
>
> base-commit: 8bf30f9d23eb5040d37e6e712789cee8e71e1577
> --
> 2.39.5

I attach a fix-patch concept for something I think that'd be nicer, do with
it what thy wilt! :P sorry I don't mean to be 'one of those' maintainers
who copy/pastes code + demands somebody do it (by no means do I do so), but
since this is so small I feel it's kind of quicker for me to do it this
way.

Obviously take it or leave it/adapt it/etc. This is compile-tested only...

----8<----