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

Ryan Roberts
2025-04-30T13:21:16Z

On 30/04/2025 14:04, Petr Vaněk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 04:02:10PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 29/04/2025 15:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 29.04.25 16:41, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 29/04/2025 15:29, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something with XEN is really problematic here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are inside a lazy MMU region (arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode()) at this point,
>>>> which I believe XEN uses. If a PTE was written then read back while in lazy mode
>>>> you could get a stale value.
>>>>
>>>> See
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/912c7a32-b39c-494f-a29c-4865cd92aeba@agordeev.local/
>>>> for an example bug.
>>>
>>> So if we cannot trust ptep_get() output, then, ... how could we trust anything
>>> here and ever possibly batch?
>>
>> The point is that for a write followed by a read to the same PTE, the read may
>> not return what was written. It could return the value of the PTE at the point
>> of entry into the lazy mmu mode.
>>
>> I guess one quick way to test is to hack out lazy mmu support. Something like
>> this? (totally untested):
>
> I (blindly) applied the suggested change but I am still seeing the same
> issue.

Thanks for trying; it was just something that came to mind as a possibility
knowing it was XEN and inside lazy mmu region. I think your other discussion has
concluded that the x86 implementation of pte_advance_pfn() is not correct when
XEN is in use? (I was just scanning, perhaps I came to wrong conclusion)..

Thanks,
Ryan

>
> Petr
>
>> ----8<----
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> index c4c23190925c..1f0a1a713072 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> @@ -541,22 +541,6 @@ static inline void arch_end_context_switch(struct
>> task_struct *next)
>> PVOP_VCALL1(cpu.end_context_switch, next);
>> }
>>
>> -#define __HAVE_ARCH_ENTER_LAZY_MMU_MODE
>> -static inline void arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
>> -{
>> - PVOP_VCALL0(mmu.lazy_mode.enter);
>> -}
>> -
>> -static inline void arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
>> -{
>> - PVOP_VCALL0(mmu.lazy_mode.leave);
>> -}
>> -
>> -static inline void arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
>> -{
>> - PVOP_VCALL0(mmu.lazy_mode.flush);
>> -}
>> -
>> static inline void __set_fixmap(unsigned /* enum fixed_addresses */ idx,
>> phys_addr_t phys, pgprot_t flags)
>> {
>> ----8<----
>>