Re: [syzbot] [arm?] WARNING in copy_highpage

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 06.10.25 15:17, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:55:27AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Modules linked in:
>>>> CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 25189 Comm: syz.2.7336 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT
>>>> Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>>>> pstate: 00402009 (nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>>>> pc : copy_highpage+0x150/0x334 arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c:55
>>>> lr : copy_highpage+0xb4/0x334 arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c:25
>>>> sp : ffff800088053940
>>>> x29: ffff800088053940 x28: ffffc1ffc0acf800 x27: ffff800088053b10
>>>> x26: ffffc1ffc0acf808 x25: ffffc1ffc037b1c0 x24: ffffc1ffc037b1c0
>>>> x23: ffffc1ffc0acf800 x22: ffffc1ffc0acf800 x21: fff000002b3e0000
>>>> x20: fff000000dec7000 x19: ffffc1ffc037b1c0 x18: 0000000000000000
>>>> x17: fff07ffffcffa000 x16: ffff800080008000 x15: 0000000000000001
>>>> x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 0000000000000003 x12: 000000000006d9ad
>>>> x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000010 x9 : 0000000000000000
>>>> x8 : 0000000000000000 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000000
>>>> x5 : ffff800088053b18 x4 : ffff80008032df94 x3 : 00000000ff000000
>>>> x2 : 01ffc00003000001 x1 : 01ffc00003000001 x0 : 01ffc00003000001
>>>> Call trace:
>>>>    try_page_mte_tagging arch/arm64/include/asm/mte.h:93 [inline] (P)
>>>>    copy_highpage+0x150/0x334 arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c:55 (P)
>>>>    copy_mc_highpage include/linux/highmem.h:383 [inline]
>>>>    folio_mc_copy+0x44/0x6c mm/util.c:740
>>>>    __migrate_folio.constprop.0+0xc4/0x23c mm/migrate.c:851
>>>>    migrate_folio+0x1c/0x2c mm/migrate.c:882
>>>>    move_to_new_folio+0x58/0x144 mm/migrate.c:1097
>>>>    migrate_folio_move mm/migrate.c:1370 [inline]
>>>>    migrate_folios_move mm/migrate.c:1719 [inline]
>>>>    migrate_pages_batch+0xaf4/0x1024 mm/migrate.c:1966
>>>>    migrate_pages_sync mm/migrate.c:2023 [inline]
>>>>    migrate_pages+0xb9c/0xcdc mm/migrate.c:2105
>>>>    do_mbind+0x20c/0x4a4 mm/mempolicy.c:1539
>>>>    kernel_mbind mm/mempolicy.c:1682 [inline]
>>>>    __do_sys_mbind mm/mempolicy.c:1756 [inline]
>>>
>>> I don't think we ever stressed MTE with mbind before. I have a suspicion
>>> this problem has been around for some time.
>>>
>>> My reading of do_mbind() is that it ends up allocating pages for
>>> migrating into via alloc_migration_target_by_mpol() ->
>>> folio_alloc_mpol(). Pages returned should be untagged and uninitialised
>>> unless the PG_* flags have not been cleared on a prior free. Or
>>> migrate_pages_batch() somehow reuses some pages instead of reallocating.
>>
>> Staring at __migrate_folio(), I assume we can end up successfully calling
>> folio_mc_copy(), but then failing in __folio_migrate_mapping().
>>
>> Seems to be as easy as failing the folio_ref_freeze() in
>> __folio_migrate_mapping().
>>
>> We return -EAGAIN in that case, making the caller retry, stumbling into an
>> already-tagged page. (with the same source / destination parameters) IIRC)
>>
>> So likely this is simply us re-doing the copy after a migration failed after
>> the copy.
>>
>> Could it happen that we are calling it with a different source/destination
>> combination the second time? I don't think so, but I am not 100% sure.
> 
> Thanks David. I can now see how it would retry on the same pages without
> reallocating. At least we know it's not causing any side-effects, only
> messing up the MTE safety warnings.

As long as the folio is not getting reused elsewhere, yes.

I haven't fully understood yet if there could be cases where we use the 
folio for another source. But I think it's not trivially possible, 
because I think we allocate dst folios based on source-folio properties 
(order, node, zone, etc).

> 
>> The most reliable way would be to un-tag in case folio_mc_copy succeeded but
>> __folio_migrate_mapping() failed.
> 
> Clearing an MTE specific flag in the core code doesn't look great. Also
> going for some generic mask like PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP may have
> side-effects as we don't know where the page is coming from (we have
> those get_new_folio()/put_new_folio() arguments passed on by higher up
> callers).

As an alternative, I would probably have done something like providing a 
simple folio_mc_copy_abort().

> 
> I'm tempted to just drop the warning in the arm64 copy_highpage(),
> replace it with a comment about migration retrying on a potentially
> tagged page. It will have to override the tags each time (as it
> currently does but also warns).

Works for me. Maybe we could warn if the tag would change, because I 
think after we unmapped the folio during migration, the tag can no 
longer change.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb