Re: [PATCH] mm/util: fix off-by-one when checking folio index in snapshot_page()

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2026 at 12:46:57AM +0800, shao.mingyin@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Shao Mingyin <shao.mingyin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> mm/util: fix off-by-one when checking folio index in snapshot_page()
>
> snapshot_page() computes the page index before copying the folio state.
> If the folio changes between those reads, the index can equal the copied
> folio's page count. Valid indices are strictly less than that count,
> but the current check accepts equality and marks the snapshot faithful.
>
> Use >= so that this inconsistent snapshot is retried, or falls back to
> the unfaithful single-page representation. This also avoids reporting an
> out-of-range folio index without the corresponding dump_page() warning.
>
> Fixes: d863a12108f2 ("mm/util: introduce snapshot_page()")
> Signed-off-by: Shao Mingyin <shao.mingyin@xxxxxxxxxx>

NAK.

this is generated by some AI slopper's script, spamming the kernel. The
patches I looked at were wrong/broken, so no to anything from this person.

They've sent 300 mails in under four weeks spanniing: ata, scsi, target,
ufs, nvme/nvmet, ubifs, ublk, zloop, dm, md, mmc, virtio-blk, mfd, gpio,
pwm, spi, PCI, ASoC, ACPI, net, vfs mount, block partitions, and now mm.

and 17 series across 7 subsystems over the past 23 hours.

We need a way to ban emails from people like this...

--
Cheers, Lorenzo