Re: linux-next: KVM/s390x regression

[Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>]

Am 27.10.25 um 17:47 schrieb Claudio Imbrenda:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:41:28 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 20.10.25 09:00, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Am 17.10.25 um 23:56 schrieb Balbir Singh:
>>>    
>>>> In the meanwhile, does this fix/workaround work?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/pgtable-generic.c b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>>> index 0c847cdf4fd3..31c1754d5bd4 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>>> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ pte_t *___pte_offset_map(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, pmd_t *pmdvalp)
>>>>     
>>>>     	if (pmdvalp)
>>>>     		*pmdvalp = pmdval;
>>>> -	if (unlikely(pmd_none(pmdval) || !pmd_present(pmdval)))
>>>> +	if (unlikely(pmd_none(pmdval) || is_pmd_non_present_folio_entry(pmdval)))
>>>>     		goto nomap;
>>>>     	if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(pmdval)))
>>>>     		goto nomap;
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Yes, this seems to work.
>>
>> Right, but that's not what we will want here. We'll have to adjust s390x
>> gmap code (which is getting redesigned either way) to only take the page
>> lock.
>>
>> In the end, we'll want here later a single
>>
>> if (!pmd_present(pmdval))
>> 	goto nomap;
>>
> 
> this seems to do the trick:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
> index 8ff6bba107e8..22c448b32340 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
> @@ -599,8 +599,9 @@ int __gmap_link(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long
> gaddr, unsigned long vmaddr) | _SEGMENT_ENTRY_GMAP_UC
>                                          | _SEGMENT_ENTRY;
>                          } else
> -                               *table = pmd_val(*pmd) &
> -                                       _SEGMENT_ENTRY_HARDWARE_BITS;
> +                               *table = (pmd_val(*pmd) &
> +                                       _SEGMENT_ENTRY_HARDWARE_BITS)
> +                                       | _SEGMENT_ENTRY;
>                  }
>          } else if (*table & _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PROTECT &&
>                     !(pmd_val(*pmd) & _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PROTECT)) {
> 
> 

Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>

can you send a proper patch? I guess we should add it to Andrews mm true to keep it close to the patch that uncovered the issue.
s390 maintainers cced.