Re: [PATCH v3] x86/mm/pat: Fix VM_PAT handling when fork() fails in copy_page_range()

[David Hildenbrand]

On 04.04.25 14:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.04.25 13:52, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 10:59:12PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 03.04.25 17:14, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > Sorry, I've been having trouble with my email recently...  I replied
> > > > earlier but my email got eaten on the way out.
> > > >
> > > > What happened here is that the zero day bot emails go to me first and
> > > > then I review them or forward them depending on if they're a real
> > > > issue or not.
> > > >
> > > > Here it's a false postive because it's set and used if the
> > > > (src_vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) flag is set.  Smatch doesn't parse
> > > > this correctly.  I've been meaning to fix this in Smatch for a
> > > > while.
> > >
> > > There is a slight complication (on top of the VM_PFNMAP checks):
> > >
> > > If "src_vma->vm_flags & VM_PAT" we
> > > * set pfn
> > > * set dst_vma->vm_flags |= VM_PFNMAP
> > >
> > > Then, we only consume the pfn if "dst_vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP"
> > >
> > > While we won't be using the uninitialized pfn (good), we'd still pass an
> > > uninitialized pfn, which IIRC is UB; likely nothing happens on GCC clang,
> > > but we better handle it.
> > >
> > > So that should better be changed; I'll send a fix.
> >
> > Maybe just worth setting pfn = 0 _as well_ in the caller, belts + braces maybe?
>
> I'm planning on doing the following, just didn't get to testing it:

Ah, now I get your comment. Yeah, we could just set pfn=0 in the caller 
as well to make smatch completely happy I guess.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb