Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: limit pagecache folio refcount when splicing into pipes

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 09:09:10PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 11/6/26 18:58, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 02:10:11PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> >> Similar to mapping pagecache folios into page tables, let's reject splicing
> >> folios into a pipe if the refcount is at it's limit, similar to how we
> >> handle it during GUP.
> >>
> >> This will prevent more cases of possible folio refcount overflows with
> >> large pagecache folios.
> >>
> >> Let's keep it simple and check in the two callers of
> >> splice_folio_into_pipe().
> >>
> >> Also check in try_get_page() to cover pipe-buffer duplication by tee()
> >> and partial pipe-to-pipe splicing.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 800d8c63b2e9 ("shmem: add huge pages support")
> >> Fixes: 99cb0dbd47a1 ("mm,thp: add read-only THP support for (non-shmem) FS")
> >> Fixes: 793917d997df ("mm/readahead: Add large folio readahead")
> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/mm.h | 9 ++++++---
> >>  mm/filemap.c       | 4 ++++
> >>  mm/shmem.c         | 4 ++++
> >>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> >> index 79ae8fc0d6bb4..a82cfbce18215 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> >> @@ -2287,10 +2287,13 @@ static inline void get_page(struct page *page)
> >>  
> >>  static inline __must_check bool try_get_page(struct page *page)
> >>  {
> >> -	page = compound_head(page);
> >> -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(page_ref_count(page) <= 0))
> >> +	struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
> >> +
> >> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_ref_count(folio) <= 0))
> > 
> > Since you're here anyway can you change this to something other than
> > WARN_ON_ONCE, since that results in an OOPS with panic_on_warn set?
> > Thanks,
> 
> If it actually turns negative (or 0) with out changes, we had an overflow and
> for sure want to know about it :)

Yeah, didn't you get Docs merged to clarify WARN_ON is fine if
userspace can't trigger it?

If you use panic_on_warn you *WANT* your system to stop if it detects
corruption, that's the whole point. Removing corruption detection so
panic doesn't trigger is pure 100% nonsense.

This keeps coming up and it's frustrating to go over again and again.

Jason