On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM Mike Kravetz [off-list ref] wrote:

On 5/31/21 7:48 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:36 PM Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 31 May 2021 17:11:52 -0700 Mina Almasry [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 4:25 PM Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 27 May 2021 17:50:29 -0700 Mina Almasry [off-list ref] wrote:

I've sent 2 similar patches to the list:

1. "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: Fix simple resv_huge_pages underflow on UFFDIO_COPY"

This one is sent to -stable and linux-mm and is a fairly simple fix.

2. "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: fix racy resv_huge_pages underflow on UFFDIO_COPY"

Ah, OK, the title of the first patch was changed, which threw me off.

I'd skipped "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: Fix simple resv_huge_pages
underflow on UFFDIO_COPY" because Mike's comments appeared to require a
v5.  I applied it and made Mike's changelog suggestions.  Queued for
5.13 and -stable.

And I queued "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: fix racy resv_huge_pages
underflow on UFFDIO_COPY" for 5.14.

Awesome, thanks! And sorry for the confusion!

Mina, does this patch depend on changes to restore_reserve_on_error()?

Yes, this patch (and only this patch) depends on your changes for
complete and correct functionality. I'm not sure what's the impact

I am still working on those changes.  It may be a few days before I can
have something finalized.

If this does depend on restore_reserve_on_error as I suspect, perhaps we
should send these together.

I was thinking it's fine to have my fix in Andrew's tree a few days
before yours, since the race is hard to reproduce and even if the race
reproduces the userfaultfd tests still pass, so I don't see any
disastrous consequences, but I'm happy to do whatever is appropriate
here.

--
Mike Kravetz