Re: [PATCH] arm64: Check pxd_leaf() instead of !pxd_table() while tearing down page tables

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 15.05.25 10:40, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15/05/25 2:06 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 15.05.25 10:22, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/05/25 1:43 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 15.05.25 08:34, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>> Commit 9c006972c3fe removes the pxd_present() checks because the caller
>>>>> checks pxd_present(). But, in case of vmap_try_huge_pud(), the caller
>>>>> only
>>>>> checks pud_present(); pud_free_pmd_page() recurses on each pmd through
>>>>> pmd_free_pte_page(), wherein the pmd may be none.
>>>> The commit states: "The core code already has a check for pXd_none()",
>>>> so I assume that assumption was not true in all cases?
>>>>
>>>> Should that one problematic caller then check for pmd_none() instead?
>>>
>>>    From what I could gather of Will's commit message, my interpretation is
>>> that the concerned callers are vmap_try_huge_pud and vmap_try_huge_pmd.
>>> These individually check for pxd_present():
>>>
>>> if (pmd_present(*pmd) && !pmd_free_pte_page(pmd, addr))
>>>      return 0;
>>>
>>> The problem is that vmap_try_huge_pud will also iterate on pte entries.
>>> So if the pud is present, then pud_free_pmd_page -> pmd_free_pte_page
>>> may encounter a none pmd and trigger a WARN.
>>
>> Yeah, pud_free_pmd_page()->pmd_free_pte_page() looks shaky.
>>
>> I assume we should either have an explicit pmd_none() check in
>> pud_free_pmd_page() before calling pmd_free_pte_page(), or one in
>> pmd_free_pte_page().
>>
>> With your patch, we'd be calling pte_free_kernel() on a NULL pointer,
>> which sounds wrong -- unless I am missing something important.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you were able to trigger this WARN, it's always a good idea to
>>>> include the splat in the commit.
>>>
>>> I wasn't able to, it is just an observation from code inspection.
>>
>> That better be included in the patch description :)
> 
> I did, actually. My bad for not putting in spaces, I notice now that the
> description looks horrible to the eye :)

Ahh, there it is. Sorry :) Yeah, some empty lines won't hurt!

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb