Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: fix freeing of PMD-sized vmemmap pages

["David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 5/8/26 11:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 11:19:26AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 4/29/26 12:49, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>> In commit bf9e4e30f353 ("x86/mm: use pagetable_free()"), we switched
>>> from freeing non-boot page tables through __free_pages() to
>>> pagetable_free().
>>>
>>> However, the function is also called to free vmemmap pages.
>>>
>>> Given that vmemmap pages are not page tables, already the page_ptdesc(page)
>>> is wrong. But worse, pagetable_free() calls
>>>
>>> 	__free_pages(page, compound_order(page));
>>>
>>> As vmemmap pages are not compound pages (see vmemmap_alloc_block()) --
>>> except for HVO, which doesn't apply here -- we will only free the first
>>> page when freeing a PMD-sized vmemmap page, leaking the other ones.
>>>
>>> Fix it by properly decoupling pagetable and vmemmap freeing.
>>> free_pagetable() no longer has to mess with SECTION_INFO, as only the
>>> vmemmap is marked like that in register_page_bootmem_memmap().
>>>
>>> The indentation in remove_pmd_table() is messed up, let's fix that
>>> while touching it.
>>>
>>> Note that we'll try to get rid of that bootmem info handling soon. For
>>> now, we'll handle it similar to free_pagetable(), just avoiding the
>>> ifdef.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>>> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org>
>>> Fixes: bf9e4e30f353 ("x86/mm: use pagetable_free()")
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> Reproduced and tested with a simple VM with a virtio-mem device,
>>> repeatedly adding and removing memory.
>>>
>>> Found by code inspection while working on bootmem_info removal.
>>> ---
>>
>> @x86 maintainers, do you want to take this through your tree or should we merge
>> this through the MM tree?
>>
>> I have another MM series coming up that will touch this code (no fixes, though).
> 
> I'm thinking this should go in rather more urgent, yes?

Yes, please :)

-- 
Cheers,

David