Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: Fix folio_pte_batch() overcount with zero PTEs

Petr Vaněk
2025-04-29T18:33:32Z

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 05:45:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 29.04.25 16:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 29.04.25 16:45, Petr Vaněk wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 04:29:30PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 29.04.25 16:22, Petr Vaněk wrote:
> >>>> folio_pte_batch() could overcount the number of contiguous PTEs when
> >>>> pte_advance_pfn() returns a zero-valued PTE and the following PTE in
> >>>> memory also happens to be zero. The loop doesn't break in such a case
> >>>> because pte_same() returns true, and the batch size is advanced by one
> >>>> more than it should be.
> >>>>
> >>>> To fix this, bail out early if a non-present PTE is encountered,
> >>>> preventing the invalid comparison.
> >>>>
> >>>> This issue started to appear after commit 10ebac4f95e7 ("mm/memory:
> >>>> optimize unmap/zap with PTE-mapped THP") and was discovered via git
> >>>> bisect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 10ebac4f95e7 ("mm/memory: optimize unmap/zap with PTE-mapped THP")
> >>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@atlas.cz>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> mm/internal.h | 2 ++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> >>>> index e9695baa5922..c181fe2bac9d 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/internal.h
> >>>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> >>>> @@ -279,6 +279,8 @@ static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
> >>>> dirty = !!pte_dirty(pte);
> >>>> pte = __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte, flags);
> >>>>
> >>>> + if (!pte_present(pte))
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> if (!pte_same(pte, expected_pte))
> >>>> break;
> >>>
> >>> How could pte_same() suddenly match on a present and non-present PTE.
> >>
> >> In the problematic case pte.pte == 0 and expected_pte.pte == 0 as well.
> >> pte_same() returns a.pte == b.pte -> 0 == 0. Both are non-present PTEs.
> >
> > Observe that folio_pte_batch() was called *with a present pte*.
> >
> > do_zap_pte_range()
> > if (pte_present(ptent))
> > zap_present_ptes()
> > folio_pte_batch()
> >
> > How can we end up with an expected_pte that is !present, if it is based
> > on the provided pte that *is present* and we only used pte_advance_pfn()
> > to advance the pfn?
>
> I've been staring at the code for too long and don't see the issue.
>
> We even have
>
> VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!pte_present(pte), folio);
>
> So the initial pteval we got is present.
>
> I don't see how
>
> nr = pte_batch_hint(start_ptep, pte);
> expected_pte = __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte_advance_pfn(pte, nr), flags);
>
> would suddenly result in !pte_present(expected_pte).

The issue is not happening in __pte_batch_clear_ignored but later in
following line:

expected_pte = pte_advance_pfn(expected_pte, nr);

The issue seems to be in __pte function which converts PTE value to
pte_t in pte_advance_pfn, because warnings disappears when I change the
line to

expected_pte = (pte_t){ .pte = pte_val(expected_pte) + (nr << PFN_PTE_SHIFT) };

The kernel probably uses __pte function from
arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h because it is configured with
CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y:

static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val)
{
return (pte_t) { PVOP_ALT_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val,
"mov %%rdi, %%rax", ALT_NOT_XEN) };
}

I guess it might cause this weird magic, but I need more time to
understand what it does :)

> The really weird thing is that this has only been seen on XEN.
>
> But even on XEN, a present pte should not suddenly get !present -- we're not
> re-reading from ptep :/
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>