From: Stepan Ionichev <sozdayvek@gmail.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: david@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, jhubbard@nvidia.com,
peterx@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Stepan Ionichev <sozdayvek@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm/gup: tolerate NULL unlocked in fixup_user_fault()
Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 13:30:50 +0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260507083050.416-1-sozdayvek@gmail.com> (raw)
fixup_user_fault() takes a "bool *unlocked" output parameter that
callers may set to NULL when they do not want the retry/unlock
machinery. The function honours that contract on the way in:
if (unlocked)
fault_flags |= FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY | FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE;
so callers passing NULL never set FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY. In return,
handle_mm_fault() is not expected to produce VM_FAULT_RETRY or
VM_FAULT_COMPLETED for them, which is why the dereferences of
unlocked further down used to be considered unreachable.
That invariant is implicit, not enforced. At least one caller in
arch/s390/pci/pci_mmio.c does pass NULL:
fixup_user_fault(current->mm, mmio_addr, FAULT_FLAG_WRITE, NULL);
If a future change in handle_mm_fault() ever returned
VM_FAULT_COMPLETED or VM_FAULT_RETRY without ALLOW_RETRY having been
requested, the unconditional "*unlocked = true" stores would
NULL-deref and crash the kernel for this path.
smatch flags both stores:
mm/gup.c:1597 fixup_user_fault() error: we previously assumed
'unlocked' could be null (see line 1573)
mm/gup.c:1612 fixup_user_fault() error: we previously assumed
'unlocked' could be null (see line 1573)
Make the NULL handling consistent on both sides of the function:
guard the two stores with "if (unlocked)" so fixup_user_fault()
tolerates a NULL output pointer regardless of which fault outcome
handle_mm_fault() returns.
No functional change for callers that already pass a non-NULL
pointer.
Signed-off-by: Stepan Ionichev <sozdayvek@gmail.com>
---
mm/gup.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
index ad9ded396..1a8d7c7c8 100644
--- a/mm/gup.c
+++ b/mm/gup.c
@@ -1594,7 +1594,8 @@ int fixup_user_fault(struct mm_struct *mm,
* could tell the callers so they do not need to unlock.
*/
mmap_read_lock(mm);
- *unlocked = true;
+ if (unlocked)
+ *unlocked = true;
return 0;
}
@@ -1608,7 +1609,8 @@ int fixup_user_fault(struct mm_struct *mm,
if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY) {
mmap_read_lock(mm);
- *unlocked = true;
+ if (unlocked)
+ *unlocked = true;
fault_flags |= FAULT_FLAG_TRIED;
goto retry;
}
--
2.43.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-05-07 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-07 8:30 Stepan Ionichev [this message]
2026-05-08 8:33 ` [PATCH] mm/gup: tolerate NULL unlocked in fixup_user_fault() David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-05-08 11:18 ` Stepan Ionichev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260507083050.416-1-sozdayvek@gmail.com \
--to=sozdayvek@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox