Re: [PATCH 6.17 2/3] mm/mremap: catch invalid multi VMA moves earlier

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

Andrew, please adjust commit message as follows:

On Sun, Aug 03, 2025 at 12:11:22PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> In remap_move() we must account for both a single VMA case, where we are
> permitted to move a single VMA regardless of multi-VMA move eligiblity, and
> multiple VMAs which, of course, must be eligible for such an operation.
>
> We determine this via vma_multi_allowed().
>
> Currently, if the first VMA is not eligible, but others are, we will move
> the first then return an error. This is not ideal, as we are performing an
> operation which we don't need to do which has an impact on the memory
> mapping.
>
> We can very easily determine if this is a multi VMA move prior to the move
> of the first VMA, by checking vma->vm_end vs. the specified end address.
>
> Therefore this patch does so, and as a result eliminates unnecessary logic
> around tracking whether the first VMA was permitted or not.
>
> This is most useful for cases where a user attempts to erroneously move
> mutliple VMAs which are not eligible for non-transient reasons - for
> instance, UFFD-armed VMAs, or file-backed VMAs backed by a file system or
> driver which specifies a custom f_op->get_unmapped_area.
>
> In the less likely instance of a failure due to transient issues such as
> out of memory or mapping limits being hit, the issue is already likely
> fatal and so the fact the operation may be partially complete is
> acceptable.
>

Previously, any attempt to solely move a VMA would require that the span
specified reside within the span of that single VMA, with no gaps before or
afterwards.

After commit d23cb648e365 ("mm/mremap: permit mremap() move of multiple
VMAs"), the multi VMA move permitted a gap to exist only after VMAs. This
was done to provide maximum flexibility.

However, We have consequently permitted this behaviour for the move of a
single VMA including those not eligible for multi VMA move.

The change introduced here means that we no longer permit non-eligible VMAs
from being moved in this way.

This is consistent, as it means all eligible VMA moves are treated the
same, and all non-eligible moves are treated as they were before.

This change does not break previous behaviour, which equally would have
disallowed such a move (only in all cases).

> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>