[PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

Commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
device-private entries") updated set_pmd_migration_entry() to use
pmdp_huge_get_and_clear() in the softleaf case, but made no further
adjustments to the function itself.

Therefore this function continues to incorrectly use pmd_write(),
pmd_soft_dirty() and pmd_uffd_wp() to determine whether the installed
migration entry should be marked writable, softdirty or uffd-wp
respectively.

Whilst all are incorrect, the most problematic of these is pmd_write(), as
this can lead to corrupted rmap state.

On x86-64 _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY is aliased to _PAGE_RW. So calling
pmd_write() on a softleaf will return the softdirty state encoded in the
entry, assuming CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY was enabled.

This was observed when running the hmm.hmm_device_private.anon_write_child
selftest:

1. The test faults in a range then migrates it such that a device-private
   THP range is established.

2. The parent then migrates it to a device-private writable PMD entry whose
   folio is entirely AnonExclusive with entire_mapcount=1, softdirty set
   (accidentally correct write state).

3. The parent forks and the PMD entries are set to device-private read only
   entries, entire_mapcount=2, softdirty still set.

4. [BUG] The child writes to the range then migrates to RAM - intending to
   install non-writable migration entries - but replacing parent and child
   PMD mappings with WRITABLE entries due to misinterpreting the softdirty
   bit.

5. In remove_migration_pmd(), if !softleaf_is_migration_read(entry) we
   set the RMAP_EXCLUSIVE flag when calling folio_add_anon_rmap_pmd() for
   both parent and child, which are therefore AnonExclusive.

6. [SPLAT] Child sets migrated folio entire_mapcount=1, parent sets
   entire_mapcount=2 and we end up with an AnonExclusive folio with
   entire_mapcount=2! Assert fires in __folio_add_anon_rmap():

		VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
				 folio_entire_mapcount(folio) > 1 &&
				 PageAnonExclusive(cur_page), folio)

This patch fixes the issue by correctly referencing the softleaf entry
fields for writable, softdirty and uffd-wp in set_pmd_migration_entry().

It also only updates A/D flags if the entry is present as these are
otherwise not meaningful for a softleaf entry.

This patch also flips the if (!present) { ... } else { ... } logic in
set_pmd_migration_entry() so it is easier to understand, and adds some
comments to make things clearer.

I was able to bisect this to commit 775465fd26a3 ("lib/test_hmm: add zone
device private THP test infrastructure") which first exposes this bug as it
was the commit that permitted test_hmm to generate the test.

However commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
device-private entries") is the commit that actually enabled this
behaviour.

Fixes: 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support device-private entries")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
---
 mm/huge_memory.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index bf9b480bb3b0..79463c709c98 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -4982,7 +4982,7 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
 	struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
 	unsigned long address = pvmw->address;
-	bool anon_exclusive;
+	bool anon_exclusive, present, writable, softdirty, uffd_wp;
 	pmd_t pmdval;
 	swp_entry_t entry;
 	pmd_t pmdswp;
@@ -4990,12 +4990,26 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
 	if (!(pvmw->pmd && !pvmw->pte))
 		return 0;

-	flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
-	if (unlikely(!pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd)))
-		pmdval = pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(vma->vm_mm, address, pvmw->pmd);
-	else
+	present = pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd);
+	if (likely(present)) {
+		flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
+
 		pmdval = pmdp_invalidate(vma, address, pvmw->pmd);

+		writable = pmd_write(pmdval);
+		softdirty = pmd_soft_dirty(pmdval);
+		uffd_wp = pmd_uffd_wp(pmdval);
+	} else {
+		softleaf_t old_entry;
+
+		pmdval = pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(vma->vm_mm, address, pvmw->pmd);
+		old_entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmdval);
+
+		writable = softleaf_is_device_private_write(old_entry);
+		softdirty = pmd_swp_soft_dirty(pmdval);
+		uffd_wp = pmd_swp_uffd_wp(pmdval);
+	}
+
 	/* See folio_try_share_anon_rmap_pmd(): invalidate PMD first. */
 	anon_exclusive = folio_test_anon(folio) && PageAnonExclusive(page);
 	if (anon_exclusive && folio_try_share_anon_rmap_pmd(folio, page)) {
@@ -5003,24 +5017,31 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
 		return -EBUSY;
 	}

-	if (pmd_dirty(pmdval))
-		folio_mark_dirty(folio);
-	if (pmd_write(pmdval))
+	/* Determine type of migration entry. */
+	if (writable)
 		entry = make_writable_migration_entry(page_to_pfn(page));
 	else if (anon_exclusive)
 		entry = make_readable_exclusive_migration_entry(page_to_pfn(page));
 	else
 		entry = make_readable_migration_entry(page_to_pfn(page));
-	if (pmd_young(pmdval))
+
+	/* Set A/D bits as necessary. */
+	if (present && pmd_young(pmdval))
 		entry = make_migration_entry_young(entry);
-	if (pmd_dirty(pmdval))
+	if (present && pmd_dirty(pmdval)) {
+		folio_mark_dirty(folio);
 		entry = make_migration_entry_dirty(entry);
+	}
+
+	/* Set PMD. */
 	pmdswp = swp_entry_to_pmd(entry);
-	if (pmd_soft_dirty(pmdval))
+	if (softdirty)
 		pmdswp = pmd_swp_mksoft_dirty(pmdswp);
-	if (pmd_uffd_wp(pmdval))
+	if (uffd_wp)
 		pmdswp = pmd_swp_mkuffd_wp(pmdswp);
 	set_pmd_at(mm, address, pvmw->pmd, pmdswp);
+
+	/* Migration entry installed: cleanup rmap, folio. */
 	folio_remove_rmap_pmd(folio, page, vma);
 	folio_put(folio);
 	trace_set_migration_pmd(address, pmd_val(pmdswp));
--
2.54.0

Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:30:44AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>  mm/huge_memory.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index bf9b480bb3b0..79463c709c98 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -4982,7 +4982,7 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
>  	struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>  	unsigned long address = pvmw->address;
> -	bool anon_exclusive;
> +	bool anon_exclusive, present, writable, softdirty, uffd_wp;
>  	pmd_t pmdval;
>  	swp_entry_t entry;
>  	pmd_t pmdswp;
> @@ -4990,12 +4990,26 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
>  	if (!(pvmw->pmd && !pvmw->pte))
>  		return 0;
>
> -	flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
> -	if (unlikely(!pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd)))
> -		pmdval = pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(vma->vm_mm, address, pvmw->pmd);
> -	else
> +	present = pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd);
> +	if (likely(present)) {
> +		flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);

Oh I forgot to mention in the commit message that I moved
flush_cache_range() into the present branch, as it's not meaningful for a
softleaf (i.e. non-present) entry.

Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 6/1/26 10:55, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:30:44AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>  mm/huge_memory.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> index bf9b480bb3b0..79463c709c98 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -4982,7 +4982,7 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
>>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
>>  	struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>>  	unsigned long address = pvmw->address;
>> -	bool anon_exclusive;
>> +	bool anon_exclusive, present, writable, softdirty, uffd_wp;
>>  	pmd_t pmdval;
>>  	swp_entry_t entry;
>>  	pmd_t pmdswp;
>> @@ -4990,12 +4990,26 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
>>  	if (!(pvmw->pmd && !pvmw->pte))
>>  		return 0;
>>
>> -	flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
>> -	if (unlikely(!pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd)))
>> -		pmdval = pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(vma->vm_mm, address, pvmw->pmd);
>> -	else
>> +	present = pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd);
>> +	if (likely(present)) {
>> +		flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
> 
> Oh I forgot to mention in the commit message that I moved
> flush_cache_range() into the present branch, as it's not meaningful for a
> softleaf (i.e. non-present) entry.

Nothing jumped at me, so LGTM

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[Dev Jain]

On 01/06/26 2:00 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
> device-private entries") updated set_pmd_migration_entry() to use
> pmdp_huge_get_and_clear() in the softleaf case, but made no further
> adjustments to the function itself.
> 
> Therefore this function continues to incorrectly use pmd_write(),
> pmd_soft_dirty() and pmd_uffd_wp() to determine whether the installed
> migration entry should be marked writable, softdirty or uffd-wp
> respectively.
> 
> Whilst all are incorrect, the most problematic of these is pmd_write(), as
> this can lead to corrupted rmap state.
> 
> On x86-64 _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY is aliased to _PAGE_RW. So calling
> pmd_write() on a softleaf will return the softdirty state encoded in the
> entry, assuming CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY was enabled.
> 
> This was observed when running the hmm.hmm_device_private.anon_write_child
> selftest:
> 
> 1. The test faults in a range then migrates it such that a device-private
>    THP range is established.
> 
> 2. The parent then migrates it to a device-private writable PMD entry whose
>    folio is entirely AnonExclusive with entire_mapcount=1, softdirty set
>    (accidentally correct write state).
> 
> 3. The parent forks and the PMD entries are set to device-private read only
>    entries, entire_mapcount=2, softdirty still set.
> 
> 4. [BUG] The child writes to the range then migrates to RAM - intending to
>    install non-writable migration entries - but replacing parent and child
>    PMD mappings with WRITABLE entries due to misinterpreting the softdirty
>    bit.
> 
> 5. In remove_migration_pmd(), if !softleaf_is_migration_read(entry) we
>    set the RMAP_EXCLUSIVE flag when calling folio_add_anon_rmap_pmd() for
>    both parent and child, which are therefore AnonExclusive.
> 
> 6. [SPLAT] Child sets migrated folio entire_mapcount=1, parent sets
>    entire_mapcount=2 and we end up with an AnonExclusive folio with
>    entire_mapcount=2! Assert fires in __folio_add_anon_rmap():
> 
> 		VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
> 				 folio_entire_mapcount(folio) > 1 &&
> 				 PageAnonExclusive(cur_page), folio)
> 
> This patch fixes the issue by correctly referencing the softleaf entry
> fields for writable, softdirty and uffd-wp in set_pmd_migration_entry().
> 
> It also only updates A/D flags if the entry is present as these are
> otherwise not meaningful for a softleaf entry.
> 
> This patch also flips the if (!present) { ... } else { ... } logic in
> set_pmd_migration_entry() so it is easier to understand, and adds some
> comments to make things clearer.
> 
> I was able to bisect this to commit 775465fd26a3 ("lib/test_hmm: add zone
> device private THP test infrastructure") which first exposes this bug as it
> was the commit that permitted test_hmm to generate the test.
> 
> However commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
> device-private entries") is the commit that actually enabled this
> behaviour.
> 
> Fixes: 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support device-private entries")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
> ---

Sashiko continues to find existing problems :) What do you think:

https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260601083044.57132-1-ljs%40kernel.org

>  mm/huge_memory.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index bf9b480bb3b0..79463c709c98 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -4982,7 +4982,7 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
>  	struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>  	unsigned long address = pvmw->address;
> -	bool anon_exclusive;
> +	bool anon_exclusive, present, writable, softdirty, uffd_wp;
>  	pmd_t pmdval;
>  	swp_entry_t entry;
>  	pmd_t pmdswp;
> @@ -4990,12 +4990,26 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
>  	if (!(pvmw->pmd && !pvmw->pte))
>  		return 0;
> 
> -	flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
> -	if (unlikely(!pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd)))
> -		pmdval = pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(vma->vm_mm, address, pvmw->pmd);
> -	else
> +	present = pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd);
> +	if (likely(present)) {
> +		flush_cache_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
> +
>  		pmdval = pmdp_invalidate(vma, address, pvmw->pmd);
> 
> +		writable = pmd_write(pmdval);
> +		softdirty = pmd_soft_dirty(pmdval);
> +		uffd_wp = pmd_uffd_wp(pmdval);
> +	} else {
> +		softleaf_t old_entry;
> +
> +		pmdval = pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(vma->vm_mm, address, pvmw->pmd);
> +		old_entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmdval);
> +
> +		writable = softleaf_is_device_private_write(old_entry);
> +		softdirty = pmd_swp_soft_dirty(pmdval);
> +		uffd_wp = pmd_swp_uffd_wp(pmdval);
> +	}
> +
>  	/* See folio_try_share_anon_rmap_pmd(): invalidate PMD first. */
>  	anon_exclusive = folio_test_anon(folio) && PageAnonExclusive(page);
>  	if (anon_exclusive && folio_try_share_anon_rmap_pmd(folio, page)) {
> @@ -5003,24 +5017,31 @@ int set_pmd_migration_entry(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw,
>  		return -EBUSY;
>  	}
> 
> -	if (pmd_dirty(pmdval))
> -		folio_mark_dirty(folio);
> -	if (pmd_write(pmdval))
> +	/* Determine type of migration entry. */
> +	if (writable)
>  		entry = make_writable_migration_entry(page_to_pfn(page));
>  	else if (anon_exclusive)
>  		entry = make_readable_exclusive_migration_entry(page_to_pfn(page));
>  	else
>  		entry = make_readable_migration_entry(page_to_pfn(page));
> -	if (pmd_young(pmdval))
> +
> +	/* Set A/D bits as necessary. */
> +	if (present && pmd_young(pmdval))
>  		entry = make_migration_entry_young(entry);
> -	if (pmd_dirty(pmdval))
> +	if (present && pmd_dirty(pmdval)) {
> +		folio_mark_dirty(folio);
>  		entry = make_migration_entry_dirty(entry);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Set PMD. */
>  	pmdswp = swp_entry_to_pmd(entry);
> -	if (pmd_soft_dirty(pmdval))
> +	if (softdirty)
>  		pmdswp = pmd_swp_mksoft_dirty(pmdswp);
> -	if (pmd_uffd_wp(pmdval))
> +	if (uffd_wp)
>  		pmdswp = pmd_swp_mkuffd_wp(pmdswp);
>  	set_pmd_at(mm, address, pvmw->pmd, pmdswp);
> +
> +	/* Migration entry installed: cleanup rmap, folio. */
>  	folio_remove_rmap_pmd(folio, page, vma);
>  	folio_put(folio);
>  	trace_set_migration_pmd(address, pmd_val(pmdswp));
> --
> 2.54.0

Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 6/1/26 17:50, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/06/26 2:00 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> Commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
>> device-private entries") updated set_pmd_migration_entry() to use
>> pmdp_huge_get_and_clear() in the softleaf case, but made no further
>> adjustments to the function itself.
>>
>> Therefore this function continues to incorrectly use pmd_write(),
>> pmd_soft_dirty() and pmd_uffd_wp() to determine whether the installed
>> migration entry should be marked writable, softdirty or uffd-wp
>> respectively.
>>
>> Whilst all are incorrect, the most problematic of these is pmd_write(), as
>> this can lead to corrupted rmap state.
>>
>> On x86-64 _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY is aliased to _PAGE_RW. So calling
>> pmd_write() on a softleaf will return the softdirty state encoded in the
>> entry, assuming CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY was enabled.
>>
>> This was observed when running the hmm.hmm_device_private.anon_write_child
>> selftest:
>>
>> 1. The test faults in a range then migrates it such that a device-private
>>    THP range is established.
>>
>> 2. The parent then migrates it to a device-private writable PMD entry whose
>>    folio is entirely AnonExclusive with entire_mapcount=1, softdirty set
>>    (accidentally correct write state).
>>
>> 3. The parent forks and the PMD entries are set to device-private read only
>>    entries, entire_mapcount=2, softdirty still set.
>>
>> 4. [BUG] The child writes to the range then migrates to RAM - intending to
>>    install non-writable migration entries - but replacing parent and child
>>    PMD mappings with WRITABLE entries due to misinterpreting the softdirty
>>    bit.
>>
>> 5. In remove_migration_pmd(), if !softleaf_is_migration_read(entry) we
>>    set the RMAP_EXCLUSIVE flag when calling folio_add_anon_rmap_pmd() for
>>    both parent and child, which are therefore AnonExclusive.
>>
>> 6. [SPLAT] Child sets migrated folio entire_mapcount=1, parent sets
>>    entire_mapcount=2 and we end up with an AnonExclusive folio with
>>    entire_mapcount=2! Assert fires in __folio_add_anon_rmap():
>>
>> 		VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
>> 				 folio_entire_mapcount(folio) > 1 &&
>> 				 PageAnonExclusive(cur_page), folio)
>>
>> This patch fixes the issue by correctly referencing the softleaf entry
>> fields for writable, softdirty and uffd-wp in set_pmd_migration_entry().
>>
>> It also only updates A/D flags if the entry is present as these are
>> otherwise not meaningful for a softleaf entry.
>>
>> This patch also flips the if (!present) { ... } else { ... } logic in
>> set_pmd_migration_entry() so it is easier to understand, and adds some
>> comments to make things clearer.
>>
>> I was able to bisect this to commit 775465fd26a3 ("lib/test_hmm: add zone
>> device private THP test infrastructure") which first exposes this bug as it
>> was the commit that permitted test_hmm to generate the test.
>>
>> However commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
>> device-private entries") is the commit that actually enabled this
>> behaviour.
>>
>> Fixes: 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support device-private entries")
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
>> ---
> 
> Sashiko continues to find existing problems :) What do you think:
> 
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260601083044.57132-1-ljs%40kernel.org

IIRC, Wei is already working on fixing what it reports here regarding
try_to_migrate_one(). So it's old news.

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260508013728.21285-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:20:51PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> Sashiko continues to find existing problems :) What do you think:
>
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260601083044.57132-1-ljs%40kernel.org

Thanks for highlighting Dev and to be clear I'm not yelling at you :P I'm
yelling about this aspect of sashiko... :)

So, this patch fixes a serious issue that renders THP device-private
completely broken in a way that can lead to memory corruption, and this
review comment has nothing to do with that :)

So TL;DR - maybe as a follow up?

IMO there's _no_ obligation to respond to stuff like this, in the same
way as somebody in a review saying 'hey here's this unrelated broken
thing'.

And this kind of thing should _never_ _ever_ block a series or patch.

(I kinda wish sashiko didn't do it, I have extremely limited time as it is,
it'd be better as a passive background scan of existing issues or
something.)

Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 05:56:45PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 6/1/26 17:50, Dev Jain wrote:
> > Sashiko continues to find existing problems :) What do you think:
> >
> > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260601083044.57132-1-ljs%40kernel.org
>
> IIRC, Wei is already working on fixing what it reports here regarding
> try_to_migrate_one(). So it's old news.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260508013728.21285-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com

Thanks, wasn't aware!

But it's also irrelevant, 'existing broken thing' has ZERO to do with a patch
addressing something else.

I kinda wish Sashiko didn't do it.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes] mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry

[Dev Jain]

On 01/06/26 9:31 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:20:51PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> Sashiko continues to find existing problems :) What do you think:
>>
>> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260601083044.57132-1-ljs%40kernel.org
> 
> Thanks for highlighting Dev and to be clear I'm not yelling at you :P I'm
> yelling about this aspect of sashiko... :)
> 
> So, this patch fixes a serious issue that renders THP device-private
> completely broken in a way that can lead to memory corruption, and this
> review comment has nothing to do with that :)
> 
> So TL;DR - maybe as a follow up?
> 
> IMO there's _no_ obligation to respond to stuff like this, in the same
> way as somebody in a review saying 'hey here's this unrelated broken
> thing'.
> 
> And this kind of thing should _never_ _ever_ block a series or patch.

Yep I agree.

Thanks David for bringing up the link.

> 
> (I kinda wish sashiko didn't do it, I have extremely limited time as it is,
> it'd be better as a passive background scan of existing issues or
> something.)
> 
> Cheers, Lorenzo