Nouveau - Aug 2019 - [PATCH 1/2] mm/hmm: hmm_range_fault() NULL pointer bug

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:17:52PM -0700, Ralph Campbell
wrote:
> Although hmm_range_fault() calls find_vma() to make sure that a vma exists
> before calling walk_page_range(), hmm_vma_walk_hole() can still be called
> with walk->vma == NULL if the start and end address are not contained
> within the vma range.
Should we convert to walk_vma_range instead?  Or keep walk_page_range
but drop searching the vma ourselves?

Except for that the patch looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>

On 8/24/19 3:37 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:17:52PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>> Although hmm_range_fault() calls find_vma() to make sure that a vma
exists
>> before calling walk_page_range(), hmm_vma_walk_hole() can still be
called
>> with walk->vma == NULL if the start and end address are not
contained
>> within the vma range.
> 
> Should we convert to walk_vma_range instead?  Or keep walk_page_range
> but drop searching the vma ourselves?
> 
> Except for that the patch looks good to me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> 
I think keeping the call to walk_page_range() makes sense.
Jason is hoping to be able to snapshot a range with & without vmas
and have the pfns[] filled with empty/valid entries as appropriate.

I plan to repost my patch changing hmm_range_fault() to use
walk.test_walk which will remove the call to find_vma().
Jason had some concerns about testing it so that's why I have
been working on some HMM self tests before resending it.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Ralph Campbell
wrote:
> 
> On 8/24/19 3:37 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:17:52PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> > > Although hmm_range_fault() calls find_vma() to make sure that a
vma exists
> > > before calling walk_page_range(), hmm_vma_walk_hole() can still
be called
> > > with walk->vma == NULL if the start and end address are not
contained
> > > within the vma range.
> > 
> > Should we convert to walk_vma_range instead?  Or keep walk_page_range
> > but drop searching the vma ourselves?
> > 
> > Except for that the patch looks good to me:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> > 
> 
> I think keeping the call to walk_page_range() makes sense.
> Jason is hoping to be able to snapshot a range with & without vmas
> and have the pfns[] filled with empty/valid entries as appropriate.
> 
> I plan to repost my patch changing hmm_range_fault() to use
> walk.test_walk which will remove the call to find_vma().
> Jason had some concerns about testing it so that's why I have
> been working on some HMM self tests before resending it.
I'm really excited to see tests for hmm_range_fault()!

Did you find this bug with the tests??

Jason