Re: [Patch v2] mm/page_vma_mapped: revalidate and do proper check before return device-private pmd

Re: [Patch v2] mm/page_vma_mapped: revalidate and do proper check before return device-private pmd

[Lance Yang]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 06:34:36AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
[...]
>diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>index 2ccbabfb2cc1..21635fab209c 100644
>--- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>+++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>@@ -243,40 +243,28 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> 		 */
> 		pmde = pmdp_get_lockless(pvmw->pmd);
> 
>-		if (pmd_trans_huge(pmde) || pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>-			pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>-			pmde = *pvmw->pmd;
>-			if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>-				softleaf_t entry;
>-
>-				if (!thp_migration_supported() ||
>-				    !(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>-				entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>-
>-				if (!softleaf_is_migration(entry) ||
>-				    !check_pmd(softleaf_to_pfn(entry), pvmw))
>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>-				return true;
>-			}
>-			if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(pmde))) {
>-				if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>-				if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>-				return true;
>-			}
>-			/* THP pmd was split under us: handle on pte level */
>-			spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
>-			pvmw->ptl = NULL;
>-		} else if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>-			const softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>-
>-			if (softleaf_is_device_private(entry)) {
>-				pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>-				return true;
>-			}
>+		if (pmd_present(pmde)) {
>+			if (!pmd_leaf(pmde))
>+				goto pte_table;
>+			if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>+			if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>+		} else if (pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>+			softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>+
>+			if (!(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>+				return not_found(pvmw);

Looked at history a bit, and I wonder if this changed something old
here ...

Since 616b8371539a ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path"), PMD
migration handling took PTL before doing PVMW_MIGRATION/PFN checks,
including not_found() cases. So lockless PMD read was just a filter ...

With this fix, true case gets final pmd_same() check, but this
not_found() case happens before taking PTL.

So a !PVMW_MIGRATION walker could race with someone, e.g.
remove_migration_pmd(): we make the not_found() decision from old PMD
value that still says "migration", while real *pvmw->pmd may already be
present again. We return without ever taking PTL :)

Not sure about practical fallout, but should these PMD-level not_found()
cases also take PTL and restart if PMD changed?

>+			if (!check_pmd(softleaf_to_pfn(entry), pvmw))
>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>+		} else if (pmd_is_device_private_entry(pmde)) {
>+			softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
> 
>+			if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>+			if (!check_pmd(softleaf_to_pfn(entry), pvmw))
>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>+		} else {
> 			if ((pvmw->flags & PVMW_SYNC) &&
> 			    thp_vma_suitable_order(vma, pvmw->address,
> 						   PMD_ORDER) &&
>@@ -286,6 +274,15 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> 			step_forward(pvmw, PMD_SIZE);
> 			continue;
> 		}
>+
>+		/* Double-check under PTL that the PMD didn't change. */
>+		pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>+		if (pmd_same(pmde, pmdp_get(pvmw->pmd)))
>+			return true;
>+		spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
>+		pvmw->ptl = NULL;
>+		goto restart;
>+pte_table:
> 		if (!map_pte(pvmw, &pmde, &ptl)) {
> 			if (!pvmw->pte)
> 				goto restart;
>-- 
>2.34.1
>

Cheers, Lance

Re: [Patch v2] mm/page_vma_mapped: revalidate and do proper check before return device-private pmd

[Wei Yang]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 08:30:01PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>
>On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 06:34:36AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>[...]
>>diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>>index 2ccbabfb2cc1..21635fab209c 100644
>>--- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>>+++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>>@@ -243,40 +243,28 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
>> 		 */
>> 		pmde = pmdp_get_lockless(pvmw->pmd);
>> 
>>-		if (pmd_trans_huge(pmde) || pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>>-			pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>>-			pmde = *pvmw->pmd;
>>-			if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>>-				softleaf_t entry;
>>-
>>-				if (!thp_migration_supported() ||
>>-				    !(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>-				entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>>-
>>-				if (!softleaf_is_migration(entry) ||
>>-				    !check_pmd(softleaf_to_pfn(entry), pvmw))
>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>-				return true;
>>-			}
>>-			if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(pmde))) {
>>-				if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>-				if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>-				return true;
>>-			}
>>-			/* THP pmd was split under us: handle on pte level */
>>-			spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
>>-			pvmw->ptl = NULL;
>>-		} else if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>>-			const softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>>-
>>-			if (softleaf_is_device_private(entry)) {
>>-				pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>>-				return true;
>>-			}
>>+		if (pmd_present(pmde)) {
>>+			if (!pmd_leaf(pmde))
>>+				goto pte_table;
>>+			if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>>+			if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>>+		} else if (pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>>+			softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>>+
>>+			if (!(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>
>Looked at history a bit, and I wonder if this changed something old
>here ...
>
>Since 616b8371539a ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path"), PMD
>migration handling took PTL before doing PVMW_MIGRATION/PFN checks,
>including not_found() cases. So lockless PMD read was just a filter ...
>
>With this fix, true case gets final pmd_same() check, but this
>not_found() case happens before taking PTL.
>
>So a !PVMW_MIGRATION walker could race with someone, e.g.
>remove_migration_pmd(): we make the not_found() decision from old PMD
>value that still says "migration", while real *pvmw->pmd may already be
>present again. We return without ever taking PTL :)
>

Hi, Lance

Thanks for take a look.

I am trying to understand the scenario you mentioned. Let's say A migrate a
pmd and B want to unmap the pmd.

            A                                        B

  try to migrate a pmd
  pmd is set to migration entry
                                           unmap the pmd ...
  managed to finish migration
                                           ...still see migration entry,
                                           so skipped and unmap fail

Would this be a timing case? Even B grab the PTL, it still could see migration
entry if B visit pmd before A finish migration.

Maybe I miss something, look forward your insight.

>Not sure about practical fallout, but should these PMD-level not_found()
>cases also take PTL and restart if PMD changed?
>

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

Re: [Patch v2] mm/page_vma_mapped: revalidate and do proper check before return device-private pmd

[Balbir Singh]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 03:07:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 6/16/26 14:30, Lance Yang wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 06:34:36AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> > [...]
> >> diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> >> index 2ccbabfb2cc1..21635fab209c 100644
> >> --- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> >> @@ -243,40 +243,28 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> >> 		 */
> >> 		pmde = pmdp_get_lockless(pvmw->pmd);
> >>
> >> -		if (pmd_trans_huge(pmde) || pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
> >> -			pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
> >> -			pmde = *pvmw->pmd;
> >> -			if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
> >> -				softleaf_t entry;
> >> -
> >> -				if (!thp_migration_supported() ||
> >> -				    !(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
> >> -				entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
> >> -
> >> -				if (!softleaf_is_migration(entry) ||
> >> -				    !check_pmd(softleaf_to_pfn(entry), pvmw))
> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
> >> -				return true;
> >> -			}
> >> -			if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(pmde))) {
> >> -				if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
> >> -				if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
> >> -				return true;
> >> -			}
> >> -			/* THP pmd was split under us: handle on pte level */
> >> -			spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
> >> -			pvmw->ptl = NULL;
> >> -		} else if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
> >> -			const softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
> >> -
> >> -			if (softleaf_is_device_private(entry)) {
> >> -				pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
> >> -				return true;
> >> -			}
> >> +		if (pmd_present(pmde)) {
> >> +			if (!pmd_leaf(pmde))
> >> +				goto pte_table;
> >> +			if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
> >> +				return not_found(pvmw);
> >> +			if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
> >> +				return not_found(pvmw);
> >> +		} else if (pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
> >> +			softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
> >> +
> >> +			if (!(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
> >> +				return not_found(pvmw);
> > 
> > Looked at history a bit, and I wonder if this changed something old
> > here ...
> > 
> > Since 616b8371539a ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path"), PMD
> > migration handling took PTL before doing PVMW_MIGRATION/PFN checks,
> > including not_found() cases. So lockless PMD read was just a filter ...
> > 
> > With this fix, true case gets final pmd_same() check, but this
> > not_found() case happens before taking PTL.
> > 
> > So a !PVMW_MIGRATION walker could race with someone, e.g.
> > remove_migration_pmd(): we make the not_found() decision from old PMD
> > value that still says "migration", while real *pvmw->pmd may already be
> > present again. We return without ever taking PTL :)
> > 
> > Not sure about practical fallout, but should these PMD-level not_found()
> > cases also take PTL and restart if PMD changed?
> I was hoping that we could so something similar to the PTE case.
> 
> In map_pte(), we check whether the PMD changed, which is slightly different.
> 
> The actual check happens in check_pte() after grabbing the PTL.
> 
> For the case you describe, map_pte() would find !pte_none(ptent) ...
> !pte_present(ptent) and !is_migration, and effectively grab the lock and proceed
> to check_pte().
> 
> In check_pte() we re-check under lock indeed.
>

Thinking of the practical fallout, not finding the PMD for a non
migration worker should be OK. Is there a case where it's not OK to
report the old state.

Balbir

Re: [Patch v2] mm/page_vma_mapped: revalidate and do proper check before return device-private pmd

[Lance Yang]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 11:50:22PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 08:30:01PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>>
>>On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 06:34:36AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>>[...]
>>>diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>>>index 2ccbabfb2cc1..21635fab209c 100644
>>>--- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>>>+++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>>>@@ -243,40 +243,28 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
>>> 		 */
>>> 		pmde = pmdp_get_lockless(pvmw->pmd);
>>> 
>>>-		if (pmd_trans_huge(pmde) || pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>>>-			pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>>>-			pmde = *pvmw->pmd;
>>>-			if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>>>-				softleaf_t entry;
>>>-
>>>-				if (!thp_migration_supported() ||
>>>-				    !(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>>-				entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>>>-
>>>-				if (!softleaf_is_migration(entry) ||
>>>-				    !check_pmd(softleaf_to_pfn(entry), pvmw))
>>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>>-				return true;
>>>-			}
>>>-			if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(pmde))) {
>>>-				if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>>-				if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>>>-					return not_found(pvmw);
>>>-				return true;
>>>-			}
>>>-			/* THP pmd was split under us: handle on pte level */
>>>-			spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
>>>-			pvmw->ptl = NULL;
>>>-		} else if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>>>-			const softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>>>-
>>>-			if (softleaf_is_device_private(entry)) {
>>>-				pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>>>-				return true;
>>>-			}
>>>+		if (pmd_present(pmde)) {
>>>+			if (!pmd_leaf(pmde))
>>>+				goto pte_table;
>>>+			if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>>>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>>>+			if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>>>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>>>+		} else if (pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>>>+			softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>>>+
>>>+			if (!(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>>>+				return not_found(pvmw);
>>
>>Looked at history a bit, and I wonder if this changed something old
>>here ...
>>
>>Since 616b8371539a ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path"), PMD
>>migration handling took PTL before doing PVMW_MIGRATION/PFN checks,
>>including not_found() cases. So lockless PMD read was just a filter ...
>>
>>With this fix, true case gets final pmd_same() check, but this
>>not_found() case happens before taking PTL.
>>
>>So a !PVMW_MIGRATION walker could race with someone, e.g.
>>remove_migration_pmd(): we make the not_found() decision from old PMD
>>value that still says "migration", while real *pvmw->pmd may already be
>>present again. We return without ever taking PTL :)
>>
>
>Hi, Lance
>
>Thanks for take a look.
>
>I am trying to understand the scenario you mentioned. Let's say A migrate a
>pmd and B want to unmap the pmd.
>
>            A                                        B
>
>  try to migrate a pmd
>  pmd is set to migration entry
>                                           unmap the pmd ...
>  managed to finish migration
>                                           ...still see migration entry,
>                                           so skipped and unmap fail
>
>Would this be a timing case? Even B grab the PTL, it still could see migration
>entry if B visit pmd before A finish migration.
>
>Maybe I miss something, look forward your insight.

Right, seeing migration entry while migration is still ongoing is fine.

What I meant was this ordering:

  CPU 0: pmde = pmdp_get_lockless(...); /* migration */
  CPU 1: remove_migration_pmd() restores PMD to present
  CPU 0: returns not_found() from old pmde, without ever taking PTL and
         rechecking *pvmw->pmd

So issue is not seeing migration entry itself, but making final
not_found() decision from stale lockless PMD value ...

Before this patch, PMD migration case took PTL before making that
decision ...

>>Not sure about practical fallout, but should these PMD-level not_found()
>>cases also take PTL and restart if PMD changed?
>>
>
>-- 
>Wei Yang
>Help you, Help me
>

Re: [Patch v2] mm/page_vma_mapped: revalidate and do proper check before return device-private pmd

[Lance Yang]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 12:11:14PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 03:07:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 6/16/26 14:30, Lance Yang wrote:
>> > 
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 06:34:36AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>> >> index 2ccbabfb2cc1..21635fab209c 100644
>> >> --- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>> >> +++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
>> >> @@ -243,40 +243,28 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
>> >> 		 */
>> >> 		pmde = pmdp_get_lockless(pvmw->pmd);
>> >>
>> >> -		if (pmd_trans_huge(pmde) || pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>> >> -			pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>> >> -			pmde = *pvmw->pmd;
>> >> -			if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>> >> -				softleaf_t entry;
>> >> -
>> >> -				if (!thp_migration_supported() ||
>> >> -				    !(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
>> >> -				entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>> >> -
>> >> -				if (!softleaf_is_migration(entry) ||
>> >> -				    !check_pmd(softleaf_to_pfn(entry), pvmw))
>> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
>> >> -				return true;
>> >> -			}
>> >> -			if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(pmde))) {
>> >> -				if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
>> >> -				if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>> >> -					return not_found(pvmw);
>> >> -				return true;
>> >> -			}
>> >> -			/* THP pmd was split under us: handle on pte level */
>> >> -			spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
>> >> -			pvmw->ptl = NULL;
>> >> -		} else if (!pmd_present(pmde)) {
>> >> -			const softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>> >> -
>> >> -			if (softleaf_is_device_private(entry)) {
>> >> -				pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>> >> -				return true;
>> >> -			}
>> >> +		if (pmd_present(pmde)) {
>> >> +			if (!pmd_leaf(pmde))
>> >> +				goto pte_table;
>> >> +			if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>> >> +				return not_found(pvmw);
>> >> +			if (!check_pmd(pmd_pfn(pmde), pvmw))
>> >> +				return not_found(pvmw);
>> >> +		} else if (pmd_is_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>> >> +			softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pmd(pmde);
>> >> +
>> >> +			if (!(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>> >> +				return not_found(pvmw);
>> > 
>> > Looked at history a bit, and I wonder if this changed something old
>> > here ...
>> > 
>> > Since 616b8371539a ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path"), PMD
>> > migration handling took PTL before doing PVMW_MIGRATION/PFN checks,
>> > including not_found() cases. So lockless PMD read was just a filter ...
>> > 
>> > With this fix, true case gets final pmd_same() check, but this
>> > not_found() case happens before taking PTL.
>> > 
>> > So a !PVMW_MIGRATION walker could race with someone, e.g.
>> > remove_migration_pmd(): we make the not_found() decision from old PMD
>> > value that still says "migration", while real *pvmw->pmd may already be
>> > present again. We return without ever taking PTL :)
>> > 
>> > Not sure about practical fallout, but should these PMD-level not_found()
>> > cases also take PTL and restart if PMD changed?
>> I was hoping that we could so something similar to the PTE case.
>> 
>> In map_pte(), we check whether the PMD changed, which is slightly different.
>> 
>> The actual check happens in check_pte() after grabbing the PTL.
>> 
>> For the case you describe, map_pte() would find !pte_none(ptent) ...
>> !pte_present(ptent) and !is_migration, and effectively grab the lock and proceed
>> to check_pte().
>> 
>> In check_pte() we re-check under lock indeed.
>>
>
>Thinking of the practical fallout, not finding the PMD for a non
>migration worker should be OK. Is there a case where it's not OK to
>report the old state.

I was thinking the lockless value should only be used as a first filter,
to see whether entry looks worth checking.

PTE side is roughly lockless filter + PTL/check_pte().

PMD true case now gets PTL/pmd_same(), but some PMD not_found() cases
still come straight from lockless "pmde".

That mismatch felt odd to me ...

Cheers, Lance