Message-ID: <5c307270-a5af-4344-89d3-7b79922d28d8@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:39:41 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc: Ming Wang <wangming01@...ngson.cn>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
 David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
 Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lixuefeng@...ngson.cn,
 Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smaps: Fix crash in smaps_hugetlb_range for non-present
 hugetlb entries

On 24.04.25 14:36, Huacai Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 8:21 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 23.04.25 10:14, Ming Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/23/25 15:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 23.04.25 03:03, Ming Wang wrote:
>>>>> When reading /proc/pid/smaps for a process that has mapped a hugetlbfs
>>>>> file with MAP_PRIVATE, the kernel might crash inside
>>>>> pfn_swap_entry_to_page.
>>>>> This occurs on LoongArch under specific conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The root cause involves several steps:
>>>>> 1. When the hugetlbfs file is mapped (MAP_PRIVATE), the initial PMD
>>>>>       (or relevant level) entry is often populated by the kernel during
>>>>> mmap()
>>>>>       with a non-present entry pointing to the architecture's
>>>>> invalid_pte_table
>>>>>       On the affected LoongArch system, this address was observed to
>>>>>       be 0x90000000031e4000.
>>>>> 2. The smaps walker (walk_hugetlb_range -> smaps_hugetlb_range) reads
>>>>>       this entry.
>>>>> 3. The generic is_swap_pte() macro checks `!pte_present() && !
>>>>> pte_none()`.
>>>>>       The entry (invalid_pte_table address) is not present. Crucially,
>>>>>       the generic pte_none() check (`!(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_GLOBAL)`)
>>>>>       returns false because the invalid_pte_table address is non-zero.
>>>>>       Therefore, is_swap_pte() incorrectly returns true.
>>>>> 4. The code enters the `else if (is_swap_pte(...))` block.
>>>>> 5. Inside this block, it checks `is_pfn_swap_entry()`. Due to a bit
>>>>>       pattern coincidence in the invalid_pte_table address on LoongArch,
>>>>>       the embedded generic `is_migration_entry()` check happens to return
>>>>>       true (misinterpreting parts of the address as a migration type).
>>>>> 6. This leads to a call to pfn_swap_entry_to_page() with the bogus
>>>>>       swap entry derived from the invalid table address.
>>>>> 7. pfn_swap_entry_to_page() extracts a meaningless PFN, finds an
>>>>>       unrelated struct page, checks its lock status (unlocked), and hits
>>>>>       the `BUG_ON(is_migration_entry(entry) && !PageLocked(p))` assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The original code's intent in the `else if` block seems aimed at handling
>>>>> potential migration entries, as indicated by the inner
>>>>> `is_pfn_swap_entry()`
>>>>> check. The issue arises because the outer `is_swap_pte()` check
>>>>> incorrectly
>>>>> includes the invalid table pointer case on LoongArch.
>>>>
>>>> This has a big loongarch smell to it.
>>>>
>>>> If we end up passing !pte_present() && !pte_none(), then loongarch must
>>>> be fixed to filter out these weird non-present entries.
>>>>
>>>> is_swap_pte() must not succeed on something that is not an actual swap pte.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your feedback and insightful analysis!
>>>
>>> You're absolutely right, the core issue here stems from how the generic
>>> is_swap_pte() macro interacts with the specific value of
>>> invalid_pte_table (or the equivalent invalid table entries for PMD) on
>>> the LoongArch architecture. I agree that this has a strong LoongArch
>>> characteristic.
>>>
>>> On the affected LoongArch system, the address used for invalid_pte_table
>>> (observed as 0x90000000031e4000 in the vmcore) happens to satisfy both
>>> !pte_present() and !pte_none() conditions. This is because:
>>> 1. It lacks the _PAGE_PRESENT and _PAGE_PROTNONE bits (correct for an
>>> invalid entry).
>>> 2. The generic pte_none() check (`!(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_GLOBAL)`)
>>> returns false, as the address value itself is non-zero and doesn't match
>>> the all-zero (except global bit) pattern.
>>> This causes is_swap_pte() to incorrectly return true for these
>>> non-mapped, initial entries set up during mmap().
>>>
>>> The reason my proposed patch changes the condition in
>>> smaps_hugetlb_range() from is_swap_pte(ptent) to
>>> is_hugetlb_entry_migration(pte) is precisely to leverage an
>>> **architecture-level filtering mechanism**, as you suggested LoongArch
>>> should provide.
>>>
>>> This works because is_hugetlb_entry_migration() internally calls
>>> `huge_pte_none()`. LoongArch **already provides** an
>>> architecture-specific override for huge_pte_none() (via
>>> `__HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTE_NONE`), which is defined as follows in
>>> arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> static inline int huge_pte_none(pte_t pte)
>>> {
>>>        unsigned long val = pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_GLOBAL;
>>>        /* Check for all zeros (except global) OR if it points to
>>> invalid_pte_table */
>>>        return !val || (val == (unsigned long)invalid_pte_table);
>>> }
>>> ```
>>
>> There is now an alternative fix on the list, right?
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/20250424083037.2226732-1-wangming01@loongson.cn/T/#u
> Yes, that one is better.

We do now have page table walkers that walk hugetlb tables without any 
hugetlb specifics.

Examples are GUP and folio_walk_start().

I assume these will be working as expected, because they would be 
checking pmd_none() / pmd_present() natively, correct?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists