Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: restrict transparent contpte mappings to valid PTEs

[Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>]

On 14/10/26 4:15 pm, Lance Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2026/10/14 18:03, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/10/26 12:01 pm, Zhao Gongyi wrote:
>>> On 10/13/26 11:39 PM, Lance Yang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * Keep the producer-side invariant documented in pgtable.h true even
>>>>> +     * if a direct caller passes an invalid descriptor with PTE_CONT set.
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    if (!pte_valid(pte))
>>>>> +        return __set_ptes(mm, addr, ptep, pte_mknoncont(pte), nr);
>>>>
>>>> set_ptes() is the only in-tree caller, and it already clears PTE_CONT
>>>> before we get here ... no? Why not fold !pte_valid(pte) into the
>>>> !mm_is_user(mm) check below and return __set_ptes() directly?
>>>>
>>>>     if (!mm_is_user(mm) || !pte_valid(pte))
>>>>         return __set_ptes(mm, addr, ptep, pte, nr);
>>>>
>>>> If a direct caller does pass a !pte_valid PTE with PTE_CONT set, I'd
>>>> rather add a VM_WARN_ON() to catch that. Silently clearing the bit would
>>>> hide a caller bug :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Lance,
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking a look.
>>>
>>> Yes, you are right. The public set_ptes() wrapper already strips PTE_CONT
>>> before calling contpte_set_ptes(), so the pte_mknoncont() in the invalid
>>> path is unnecessary for the current in-tree path.
>>>
>>> The issue I was trying to avoid is not that the incoming pte already has
>>> PTE_CONT set, but that contpte_set_ptes() rebuilds the pte from pfn/prot
>>> and then adds PTE_CONT again based on alignment. For an invalid descriptor,
>>> that transparent contiguous encoding should be skipped entirely.
>>>
>>> So your suggested shape makes sense to me. I will change this to return
>>> through __set_ptes() directly for invalid descriptors, and add a warning
>>> for any unexpected direct caller that passes an invalid PTE with PTE_CONT
>>> set, e.g.:
>>>
>>>     if (!mm_is_user(mm) || !pte_valid(pte)) {
>>>         VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pte_valid(pte) && pte_cont(pte));
>>
>> set_ptes does pte_mknoncont(), so the warning will *never* fire I think?
> 
> YES. Just a sanity check to catch a future direct caller passing
> a !pte_valid PTE with PTE_CONT set, rather than silently clearing
> the bit :)

Ah okay you said "future direct caller". I got confused since if the only
caller is set_ptes() then the warning is useless by construction.


> 
> Cheers, Lance
> 
>>
>>>         return __set_ptes(mm, addr, ptep, pte, nr);
>>>     }
>>>
>>> That keeps the fix focused on not creating new invalid contpte entries,
>>> while still catching a bad direct caller instead of silently sanitizing it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Zhao
>>
>