Re: [syzbot] [mm?] KMSAN: uninit-value in swap_writeout

[Barry Song]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 2:43 PM Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2025/12/24 08:16, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 12:43 PM Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 11:46:44AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Uninit was created at:
> >>>>   __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x421/0xab0 mm/page_alloc.c:5233
> >>>>   alloc_pages_mpol+0x328/0x860 mm/mempolicy.c:2486
> >>>>   folio_alloc_mpol_noprof+0x56/0x1d0 mm/mempolicy.c:2505
> >>>>   shmem_alloc_folio mm/shmem.c:1890 [inline]
> >>>>   shmem_alloc_and_add_folio+0xc56/0x1bd0 mm/shmem.c:1932
> >>>>   shmem_get_folio_gfp+0xad3/0x1fc0 mm/shmem.c:2556
> >>>>   shmem_get_folio mm/shmem.c:2662 [inline]
> >>>>   shmem_symlink+0x562/0xad0 mm/shmem.c:4129
> >>>>   vfs_symlink+0x42f/0x4c0 fs/namei.c:5514
> >>>>   do_symlinkat+0x2ae/0xbb0 fs/namei.c:5541
> >>>
> >>> +Hugh and Baolin.
>
> Thanks for CCing me.
>
> >>>
> >>> This happens in the shmem symlink path, where newly allocated
> >>> folios are not cleared for some reason. As a result,
> >>> is_folio_zero_filled() ends up reading uninitialized data.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not Hugh nor Baolin, but I would guess that letting
> >> is_folio_zero_filled() skip/disable KMSAN would also work. Since all we want
> >> is to skip writeout if the folio is zero, whether it is incidentally zero, or not,
> >> does not really matter, I think.
> >
> > Hi Pedro, thanks! You’re always welcome to chime in.
> >
> > You are probably right. However, I still prefer the remaining
> > data to be zeroed, as it may be more compression-friendly.
> >
> > Random data could potentially lead to larger compressed output,
> > whereas a large area of zeros would likely result in much smaller
> > compressed data.
>
> Thanks Pedro and Barry. I remember Hugh raised a similar issue before
> (See [1], but I did not investigate further:(). I agree with Hugh's
> point that the uninitialized parts should be zeroed before going the
> outside world.
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/02a21a55-8fe3-a9eb-f54b-051d75ae8335@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> > Not quite sure if the below can fix the issue:
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > index ec6c01378e9d..0ca2d4bffdb4 100644
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> > @@ -4131,6 +4131,7 @@ static int shmem_symlink(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir,
> >                       goto out_remove_offset;
> >               inode->i_op = &shmem_symlink_inode_operations;
> >               memcpy(folio_address(folio), symname, len);
> > +             memset(folio_address(folio) + len, 0, folio_size(folio) - len);
> >               folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> >               folio_mark_dirty(folio);
> >               folio_unlock(folio);
>
> That looks reasonable to me, though I prefer to use the more readable
> helper: folio_zero_range(). Barry, could you send out a formal patch？
> Thanks.

Thanks, Baolin. Let me request a bot test first.

#syz test

diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index ec6c01378e9d..835900a08f51 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -4131,6 +4131,7 @@ static int shmem_symlink(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir,
 			goto out_remove_offset;
 		inode->i_op = &shmem_symlink_inode_operations;
 		memcpy(folio_address(folio), symname, len);
+		folio_zero_range(folio, len, folio_size(folio) - len);
 		folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
 		folio_mark_dirty(folio);
 		folio_unlock(folio);
-- 
2.48.1