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

[Andrew Morton]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 17:42:12 +0700 (WIB) Foxie Flakey <foxieflakey@xxxxxxxxx> 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

Thanks.

The text is a bit hard to follow.  I asked Gemini to redo it and
perhaps you prefer that?  https://share.gemini.google/cOWn3pQadvVw

> Fixes: 50944692052b ("userfaultfd: opportunistic TLB-flush batching for present pages in MOVE")
> Signed-off-by: Foxie Flakey <foxieflakey@xxxxxxxxx>

Yes, the pseudonym is problematic - it is contrary to our written
rules.  But I'm a sucker for fixes, sigh.  Perhaps if someone else were
to send me your patch with their signoff also, the rules would be less
offended.

> --- 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;
> +			}
>  		}
> 
>  		cond_resched();

Maintainers, when reviewing this please let me know whether you think
it should be backported.

Sashiko did what it usually does when we make it look at uffd:
	https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/9c936a9f-ed27-e510-872f-5b3b8c680975@xxxxxxxxx