Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate_device: pin large folios before splitting

[Usama Arif]

On 02/07/2026 00:29, SJ Park wrote:
> On Wed,  1 Jul 2026 07:06:38 -0700 Usama Arif <usama.arif@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> migrate_vma_collect_pmd() can detect a large folio while holding the PTE
>> lock, then drop the PTE lock before calling migrate_vma_split_folio(). The
>> split helper took its own reference, but only after the lock had already
>> been dropped.
>>
>> One way to hit this is device migration over a range that contains a large
>> folio. The walker reads the PTE while holding the PTE lock and derives the
>> folio either from a present PTE via vm_normal_page(), or from a non-present
>> PTE that encodes a device-private softleaf entry. It then has to drop the
>> PTE lock because split_folio() can block. Before migrate_vma_split_folio()
>> gets a folio reference, concurrent reclaim, migration, or truncation can
>> replace or clear the entry and drop the last reference to the folio. The
>> split helper would then take a reference and lock on a stale folio pointer.
>>
>> Take a temporary reference before dropping the PTE lock and pass that
>> reference into migrate_vma_split_folio(). The helper consumes the
>> reference, so split_folio() still sees only the expected caller pin instead
>> of an extra pin that could make the split fail.
>>
>> Reported-by: sashiko-bot <sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Just curious.  Has the bot sent the review directly to you?  Or, you read it
> from sashiko.dev web site but kindly giving the credit to the bot?

I read it from sashiko.dev!

> 
>> Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260630164143.1595669-1-usama.arif%40linux.dev
> 
> The link shows the comments for the entire series, so I was little bit confused
> where the real finding is.  Seems like that is on the reply to the patch 5?
> And today I learned Sashiko.dev provides a way to point a reply to a specific
> patch, like this:
> 
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260630164143.1595669-1-usama.arif%40linux.dev?part=5
> 

Thanks for this!

>> Fixes: 022a12deda53 ("mm/migrate_device: handle partially mapped folios during collection")
> 
> Seems merged in 6.19.  Should we Cc stable@ ?
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: SJ Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks SJ!

> 
>> ---
>>  mm/migrate_device.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
>> index 2f8b646302c2..f5a5f699e98e 100644
>> --- a/mm/migrate_device.c
>> +++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
>> @@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ static int migrate_vma_collect_hole(unsigned long start,
>>   * @folio: the folio to split
>>   * @fault_page: struct page associated with the fault if any
>>   *
>> + * If @folio is not the folio containing @fault_page, the caller must hold a
>> + * reference on @folio. The helper consumes that reference.
>> + *
>>   * Returns 0 on success
>>   */
>>  static int migrate_vma_split_folio(struct folio *folio,
>> @@ -86,10 +89,8 @@ static int migrate_vma_split_folio(struct folio *folio,
>>  	struct folio *fault_folio = fault_page ? page_folio(fault_page) : NULL;
>>  	struct folio *new_fault_folio = NULL;
>>  
>> -	if (folio != fault_folio) {
>> -		folio_get(folio);
>> +	if (folio != fault_folio)
>>  		folio_lock(folio);
>> -	}
>>  
>>  	ret = split_folio(folio);
>>  	if (ret) {
>> @@ -310,6 +311,13 @@ static int migrate_vma_collect_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
>>  			if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>  				int ret;
>>  
>> +				/*
>> +				 * Keep the folio stable after dropping the PTE
>> +				 * lock. migrate_vma_split_folio() consumes this
>> +				 * reference.
>> +				 */
>> +				if (folio != fault_folio)
>> +					folio_get(folio);
>>  				lazy_mmu_mode_disable();
>>  				pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
>>  				ret = migrate_vma_split_folio(folio,
>> @@ -353,6 +361,13 @@ static int migrate_vma_collect_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
>>  			if (folio && folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>  				int ret;
>>  
>> +				/*
>> +				 * Keep the folio stable after dropping the
>> +				 * PTE lock. migrate_vma_split_folio() consumes
>> +				 * this reference.
>> +				 */
> 
> I don't mind having the above comments.  Nonetheless, having same content but
> different wrapping look special to me.
> 
> If people really hate having two (incompletely) duplicated comments, what about
> separating the recurring code out and adding the coment once on the function?
> Maybe having a hotfix version without the comment and later refactoring with
> the function can also be an option?  Just a pure loud thinking.
> 
> Anyway, thank you for making Linux safer! :)
> 
>> +				if (folio != fault_folio)
>> +					folio_get(folio);
>>  				lazy_mmu_mode_disable();
>>  				pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
>>  				ret = migrate_vma_split_folio(folio,
>> -- 
>> 2.53.0-Meta
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> SJ