Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: reset err to be 0 when move_pages_ptes succeeded

[Foxie Flakey]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2026, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 2:15 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > (adding Suren)
>
> Thanks Mike!
>
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 05:42:12PM +0700, Foxie Flakey wrote:
> > >
> > > An fix for edge case can occur if move_pages_ptes return -EAGAIN, later
> > > when checked and it is EAGAIN, outer loop would retry again on same page
> > > and succeeded but the err isn't reset so the outer loop would think need
> > > to retry again so it goes back again and move pages again. On third attempt
> > > move_pages_ptes will fail because it already moved and returns an error
> > > that is not EAGAIN when outer loop checks again it sees non EAGAIN so it
> > > dont retry and break out of loop. When loop is terminated it did not update
> > > the "moved" variable from successful 2nd iteration.
> > >
> > > That behaviour manifested into this at userspace
> > >
> > > Source:      [ .. unmapped  .. ][ .. mapped    ..]
> > > Destination: [ .. mapped    .. ][ .. unmapped  ..]
> > >                           ^     ^
> > >                           \     Kernel moved this far in actuality
> > >                            What is reported to userspace on struct
> > >                            uffdio_move's move field
> > >
> > > When the previous behaviour is
> > > Source:      [ .. unmapped  .. ][ .. mapped    ..]
> > > Destination: [ .. mapped    .. ][ .. unmapped  ..]
> > >                                 ^
> > >                                 Reported to user space via uffdio_move's
> > >                                 move field
>
> This description left me scratching my head. If I understand the
> problem correctly, the issue is that the err is not cleared after we
> decided that we need to retry. If so, how about a simpler explanation:

Sorry for the bad explanation, but that is correct. To repeat again to
make sure I understood correct, move_pages() wrongfully retries to move
again due stale err.

> During move_pages() operation, when move_pages_ptes() returns EAGAIN,
> the error code is not cleared even after we processed it. This leads
> to a successful retry but then the same pages are retried again due to
> the stale error code. This time move fails because pages are already
> moved, loop is terminated and move_pages() reports a failure.
> Clear the error code once we processes EAGAIN.

Thank you, I'll update in v2. I'm waiting for answer from Mike whether
Foxie Flakey is fine in Signed-off-by so I don't create too many revisions
when I can combine feedbacks into one.

> > >
> > > Fixes: 50944692052b ("userfaultfd: opportunistic TLB-flush batching for present pages in MOVE")
> > > Signed-off-by: Foxie Flakey <foxieflakey@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Is Foxie Flakey your real name?
> > Signed-off-by should be using a known identity (sorry, no anonymous contributions.)
> >
> > > ---
> > >  mm/userfaultfd.c | 6 ++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > index c3adedaaf7d5..595e7e232f90 100644
> > > --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > @@ -2069,10 +2069,12 @@ static ssize_t move_pages(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long dst_start,
> > >                       ret = move_pages_ptes(mm, dst_pmd, src_pmd,
> > >                                             dst_vma, src_vma, dst_addr,
> > >                                             src_addr, src_end - src_addr, mode);
> > > -                     if (ret < 0)
> > > +                     if (ret < 0) {
> > >                               err = ret;
> > > -                     else
> > > +                     } else {
> > > +                             err = 0;
> > >                               step_size = ret;
> > > +                     }
>
> This fix is wrong. It resets the err before we process it and
> determine that a retry is needed.
> A proper fix is to reset it later here:
>
> if (err) {
> -        if (err == -EAGAIN)
> +       if (err == -EAGAIN) {
> +              err = 0;
>                continue;
> +       }
>          break;
> }

I see, that one make more sense after thinking about it that retry should
clear err before retrying.

> > >               }
> > >
> > >               cond_resched();
> > >
> > > base-commit: 62cc90241548d5570ee68e01aaba6506964e9811
> > > --
> > > 2.55.0
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Mike.
>