linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: page_table

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45f945af-d1f4-4509-841b-1199288d12c0@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:37:26 -0500
From: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, yuzhao@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: page_table_check: use new iteration API

On 2025-02-20 06:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.02.25 03:17, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>> The page_ext_next() function assumes that page extension objects for a
>> page order allocation always reside in the same memory section, which
>> may not be true and could lead to crashes. Use the new page_ext
>> iteration API instead.
>>
>> Fixes: cf54f310d0d3 ("mm/hugetlb: use __GFP_COMP for gigantic folios")
>> Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/page_table_check.c | 39 ++++++++++++---------------------------
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_table_check.c b/mm/page_table_check.c
>> index 509c6ef8de400..b52e04d31c809 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_table_check.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_table_check.c
>> @@ -62,24 +62,20 @@ static struct page_table_check *get_page_table_check(struct page_ext *page_ext)
>>    */
>>   static void page_table_check_clear(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long pgcnt)
>>   {
>> +    struct page_ext_iter iter;
>>       struct page_ext *page_ext;
>>       struct page *page;
>> -    unsigned long i;
>>       bool anon;
>>       if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
>>           return;
>>       page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>> -    page_ext = page_ext_get(page);
>> -
>> -    if (!page_ext)
>> -        return;
>> -
>>       BUG_ON(PageSlab(page));
>>       anon = PageAnon(page);
>> -    for (i = 0; i < pgcnt; i++) {
>> +    rcu_read_lock();
>> +    for_each_page_ext(page, pgcnt, page_ext, iter) {
>>           struct page_table_check *ptc = get_page_table_check(page_ext);
>>           if (anon) {
>> @@ -89,9 +85,8 @@ static void page_table_check_clear(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long pgcnt)
>>               BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->anon_map_count));
>>               BUG_ON(atomic_dec_return(&ptc->file_map_count) < 0);
>>           }
>> -        page_ext = page_ext_next(page_ext);
>>       }
>> -    page_ext_put(page_ext);
>> +    rcu_read_unlock();
>>   }
> 
> [...]
> 
>>   /*
>> @@ -140,24 +130,19 @@ static void page_table_check_set(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long pgcnt,
>>    */
>>   void __page_table_check_zero(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
>>   {
>> +    struct page_ext_iter iter;
>>       struct page_ext *page_ext;
>> -    unsigned long i;
>>       BUG_ON(PageSlab(page));
>> -    page_ext = page_ext_get(page);
>> -
>> -    if (!page_ext)
>> -        return;
>> -
>> -    for (i = 0; i < (1ul << order); i++) {
>> +    rcu_read_lock();
>> +    for_each_page_ext_order(page, order, page_ext, iter) {
> 
> I would avoid introducing for_each_page_ext_order() and just pass "1 << order" as the page count.

OK, I'll drop it.

> 
>>           struct page_table_check *ptc = get_page_table_check(page_ext);
>>           BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->anon_map_count));
>>           BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->file_map_count));
>> -        page_ext = page_ext_next(page_ext);
>>       }
>> -    page_ext_put(page_ext);
>> +    rcu_read_unlock();
>>   }
>>   void __page_table_check_pte_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t pte)
> 
> Apart from that, this looks very nice to me
> 
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>