[adding the stable team]
On 05.02.24 18:07, Yang Shi wrote:
On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:24 AM Thorsten Leemhuis regressions@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 18.01.24 14:35, Yang Shi wrote:
The commit efa7df3e3bb5 ("mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP boundaries") caused two issues [1] [2] reported on 32 bit system or compat userspace.
It doesn't make too much sense to force huge page alignment on 32 bit system due to the constrained virtual address space.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAHbLzkqa1SCBA10yjWTtA2mKCsoK5+M1BthSDL8ROv... [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAHbLzkqa1SCBA10yjWTtA2mKCsoK5+M1BthSDL8ROv...
[FWIW, this is now 4ef9ad19e17676 ("mm: huge_memory: don't force huge page alignment on 32 bit") in mainline]
Quick question: it it okay to ask Greg to pick this up for linux-6.7.y series?
Yes, definitely. Thanks for following up.
In that case: Greg, could you please consider picking up 4ef9ad19e17676 ("mm: huge_memory: don't force huge page alignment on 32 bit") for the next linux-6.7 rc round? tia!
Ohh, and btw: you might also want to pick up c4608d1bf7c653 ("mm: mmap: map MAP_STACK to VM_NOHUGEPAGE") if you haven't already done so: its stable tag contains a typo, hence I guess your scripts might have missed it (I only noticed that by chance).
Ciao, Thorsten
I'm wondering because Jiri's report ([1] in above quote) sounded like this is something that will affect and annoy quite a few people with the linux-6.7.y.
Ciao, Thorsten
Fixes: efa7df3e3bb5 ("mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP boundaries") Reported-by: Jiri Slaby jirislaby@kernel.org Reported-by: Suren Baghdasaryan surenb@google.com Tested-by: Jiri Slaby jirislaby@kernel.org Tested-by: Suren Baghdasaryan surenb@google.com Cc: Rik van Riel riel@surriel.com Cc: Matthew Wilcox willy@infradead.org Cc: Christopher Lameter cl@linux.com Signed-off-by: Yang Shi yang@os.amperecomputing.com
mm/huge_memory.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c index 94ef5c02b459..e9fbaccbe0c0 100644 --- a/mm/huge_memory.c +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ #include <linux/page_owner.h> #include <linux/sched/sysctl.h> #include <linux/memory-tiers.h> +#include <linux/compat.h>
#include <asm/tlb.h> #include <asm/pgalloc.h> @@ -811,6 +812,14 @@ static unsigned long __thp_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, loff_t off_align = round_up(off, size); unsigned long len_pad, ret;
/*
* It doesn't make too much sense to froce huge page alignment on
* 32 bit system or compat userspace due to the contrained virtual
* address space and address entropy.
*/
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_32BIT) || in_compat_syscall())
return 0;
if (off_end <= off_align || (off_end - off_align) < size) return 0;
Hey Greg, is below mail still in your queue of linux-stable mails to process? If so please apologize this interruption and just ignore this mail. I just started to wonder if it might have fallen through the cracks somehow, as I've seen you updating stable-queue.git for 6.7.y, but it's still missing this patch (and the other one mentioned) -- that's why I decided to write this quick status inquiry.
Ciao, Thorsten
On 05.02.24 18:53, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
[adding the stable team]
On 05.02.24 18:07, Yang Shi wrote:
On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:24 AM Thorsten Leemhuis regressions@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 18.01.24 14:35, Yang Shi wrote:
The commit efa7df3e3bb5 ("mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP boundaries") caused two issues [1] [2] reported on 32 bit system or compat userspace.
[...]
[FWIW, this is now 4ef9ad19e17676 ("mm: huge_memory: don't force huge page alignment on 32 bit") in mainline]
Quick question: it it okay to ask Greg to pick this up for linux-6.7.y series?
Yes, definitely. Thanks for following up.
In that case: Greg, could you please consider picking up 4ef9ad19e17676 ("mm: huge_memory: don't force huge page alignment on 32 bit") for the next linux-6.7 rc round? tia!
Ohh, and btw: you might also want to pick up c4608d1bf7c653 ("mm: mmap: map MAP_STACK to VM_NOHUGEPAGE") if you haven't already done so: its stable tag contains a typo, hence I guess your scripts might have missed it (I only noticed that by chance).
Ciao, Thorsten
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 02:45:04PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hey Greg, is below mail still in your queue of linux-stable mails to process? If so please apologize this interruption and just ignore this mail. I just started to wonder if it might have fallen through the cracks somehow, as I've seen you updating stable-queue.git for 6.7.y, but it's still missing this patch (and the other one mentioned) -- that's why I decided to write this quick status inquiry.
Yes, my queue is quite large because of travel and the CNA/CVE work that was happening, am catching up now. I've queued these up now, thanks.
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org