From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <davidhildenbrandkernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Polensky <japo@linux.ibm.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: restrict __GFP_ZEROTAGS to HW tagging architectures
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:55:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aRIK79pCWNZS1Yr1@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aRIEkLw7BofLjOWs@arm.com>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 03:28:16PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:53:33AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> > On 10.11.25 10:48, Jan Polensky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:09:31AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> > > > On 09.11.25 01:36, Jan Polensky wrote:
> > > > > The previous change added __GFP_ZEROTAGS when allocating the huge zero
> > > > > folio to ensure tag initialization for arm64 with MTE enabled. However,
> > > > > on s390 this flag is unnecessary and triggers a regression
> > > > > (observed as a crash during repeated 'dnf makecache').
> [...]
> > > > I think the problem is that post_alloc_hook() does
> > > >
> > > > if (zero_tags) {
> > > > /* Initialize both memory and memory tags. */
> > > > for (i = 0; i != 1 << order; ++i)
> > > > tag_clear_highpage(page + i);
> > > >
> > > > /* Take note that memory was initialized by the loop above. */
> > > > init = false;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > And tag_clear_highpage() is a NOP on other architectures.
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h
> index 2312e6ee595f..dcff91533590 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ struct folio *vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long vaddr);
> #define vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio
>
> +bool arch_has_tag_clear_highpage(void);
> void tag_clear_highpage(struct page *to);
> #define __HAVE_ARCH_TAG_CLEAR_HIGHPAGE
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index 125dfa6c613b..318d091db843 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -967,18 +967,13 @@ struct folio *vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> return vma_alloc_folio(flags, 0, vma, vaddr);
> }
>
> +bool arch_has_tag_clear_highpage(void)
> +{
> + return system_supports_mte();
> +}
> +
> void tag_clear_highpage(struct page *page)
> {
> - /*
> - * Check if MTE is supported and fall back to clear_highpage().
> - * get_huge_zero_folio() unconditionally passes __GFP_ZEROTAGS and
> - * post_alloc_hook() will invoke tag_clear_highpage().
> - */
> - if (!system_supports_mte()) {
> - clear_highpage(page);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> /* Newly allocated page, shouldn't have been tagged yet */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!try_page_mte_tagging(page));
> mte_zero_clear_page_tags(page_address(page));
> diff --git a/include/linux/highmem.h b/include/linux/highmem.h
> index 105cc4c00cc3..7aa56179ccef 100644
> --- a/include/linux/highmem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/highmem.h
> @@ -251,6 +251,11 @@ static inline void clear_highpage_kasan_tagged(struct page *page)
>
> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_TAG_CLEAR_HIGHPAGE
>
> +static inline bool arch_has_tag_clear_highpage(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static inline void tag_clear_highpage(struct page *page)
> {
> }
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index e4efda1158b2..5ab15431bc06 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1798,7 +1798,8 @@ inline void post_alloc_hook(struct page *page, unsigned int order,
> {
> bool init = !want_init_on_free() && want_init_on_alloc(gfp_flags) &&
> !should_skip_init(gfp_flags);
> - bool zero_tags = init && (gfp_flags & __GFP_ZEROTAGS);
> + bool zero_tags = init && (gfp_flags & __GFP_ZEROTAGS) &&
> + arch_has_tag_clear_highpage();
> int i;
>
> set_page_private(page, 0);
> --------------------8<--------------------------------
>
> Reasoning: with MTE on arm64, you can't have kasan-tagged pages in the
> kernel which are also exposed to user because the tags are shared (same
> physical location). The 'zero_tags' initialisation in post_alloc_hook()
> makes sense for this behaviour. With virtual tagging (briefly announced
> in [1], full specs not public yet), both the user and the kernel can
> have their own tags - more like KASAN_SW_TAGS but without the compiler
> instrumentation. The kernel won't be able to zero the tags for the user
> since they are in virtual space. It can, however, continue to use Kasan
> tags even if the pages are mapped in user space. In this case, I'd
> rather use the kernel_init_pages() call further down in
> post_alloc_hook() than replicating it in tag_clear_highpage(). When we
> get to upstreaming virtual tagging (informally vMTE, sometime next
> year), I'd like to have a kernel image that supports both, so the
> decision on whether to call tag_clear_highpage() will need to be
> dynamic.
Actually, there's not much to kernel_init_pages() other than disabling
kasan temporarily since the unpoisoning already took place a few lines
up. The arm64 tag_clear_highpage() calling clear_highpage() directly is
fine before unpoisoning. So we can cope with this even in the vMTE case.
A simple patch hiding the enum is fine by me.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-10 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-31 16:57 [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: Initialise the tags of the huge zero folio Catalin Marinas
2025-10-31 17:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-11-03 13:32 ` Mark Brown
2025-11-03 14:30 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-11-03 14:41 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-03 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-11-03 19:29 ` Beleswar Prasad Padhi
2025-11-04 1:05 ` Andrew Morton
2025-11-04 8:52 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-11-04 11:53 ` [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: Initialise the tags of the huge zero Lance Yang
2025-11-08 19:19 ` [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: initialise the tags of the huge zero folio Jan Polensky
2025-11-09 0:42 ` [PATCH] Clarification: please ignore earlier submission Jan Polensky
2025-11-09 0:36 ` [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: restrict __GFP_ZEROTAGS to HW tagging architectures Jan Polensky
2025-11-10 9:09 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-10 9:48 ` Jan Polensky
2025-11-10 9:53 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-10 15:28 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-11-10 15:55 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2025-11-11 10:44 ` Jan Polensky
2025-11-11 12:27 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-11 12:28 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aRIK79pCWNZS1Yr1@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davidhildenbrandkernel@gmail.com \
--cc=japo@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).