On Thu, 27 May 2021 17:46:49 -0700 Mina Almasry [off-list ref] wrote:

The userfaultfd hugetlb tests detect a resv_huge_pages underflow. This
happens when hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte() is called with !is_continue on
an index for which we already have a page in the cache. When this
happens, we allocate a second page, double consuming the reservation,
and then fail to insert the page into the cache and return -EEXIST.

To fix this, we first if there exists a page in the cache which already
consumed the reservation, and return -EEXIST immediately if so.

There is still a rare condition where we fail to copy the page contents
AND race with a call for hugetlb_no_page() for this index and again we
will underflow resv_huge_pages. That is fixed in a more complicated
patch not targeted for -stable.

Test:
Hacked the code locally such that resv_huge_pages underflows produce
a warning, then:

./tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd hugetlb_shared 10
	2 /tmp/kokonut_test/huge/userfaultfd_test && echo test success
./tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd hugetlb 10
	2 /tmp/kokonut_test/huge/userfaultfd_test && echo test success

Both tests succeed and produce no warnings. After the
test runs number of free/resv hugepages is correct.

Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <redacted>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: Mike Kravetz <redacted>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

Do we have a Fixes: for this, or is it an always-been-there issue?