In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order" was triggered. But the test cases are only for anonmous folios. while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. THP...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order" was triggered. But the test cases are only for anonmous folios. while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. THP...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order" was triggered. But the test cases are only for anonmous folios. while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. T

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: m ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order" was triggered. But the test cases are only for anonmous folios. while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily....