linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Check pxd_leaf() instead of !pxd

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: <20250515125606.GA11878@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:56:07 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
	ryan.roberts@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com,
	mark.rutland@....com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Check pxd_leaf() instead of !pxd_table() while
 tearing down page tables

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:32:22AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 15.05.25 11:27, Dev Jain wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 15/05/25 2:23 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 15.05.25 10:47, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 15/05/25 2:06 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > On 15.05.25 10:22, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 15/05/25 1:43 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > > > On 15.05.25 08:34, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > > > > Commit 9c006972c3fe removes the pxd_present() checks because the
> > > > > > > > caller
> > > > > > > > checks pxd_present(). But, in case of vmap_try_huge_pud(), the caller
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > checks pud_present(); pud_free_pmd_page() recurses on each pmd
> > > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > pmd_free_pte_page(), wherein the pmd may be none.
> > > > > > > The commit states: "The core code already has a check for pXd_none()",
> > > > > > > so I assume that assumption was not true in all cases?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Should that one problematic caller then check for pmd_none() instead?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     From what I could gather of Will's commit message, my
> > > > > > interpretation is
> > > > > > that the concerned callers are vmap_try_huge_pud and vmap_try_huge_pmd.
> > > > > > These individually check for pxd_present():
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > if (pmd_present(*pmd) && !pmd_free_pte_page(pmd, addr))
> > > > > >       return 0;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The problem is that vmap_try_huge_pud will also iterate on pte entries.
> > > > > > So if the pud is present, then pud_free_pmd_page -> pmd_free_pte_page
> > > > > > may encounter a none pmd and trigger a WARN.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, pud_free_pmd_page()->pmd_free_pte_page() looks shaky.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I assume we should either have an explicit pmd_none() check in
> > > > > pud_free_pmd_page() before calling pmd_free_pte_page(), or one in
> > > > > pmd_free_pte_page().
> > > > > 
> > > > > With your patch, we'd be calling pte_free_kernel() on a NULL pointer,
> > > > > which sounds wrong -- unless I am missing something important.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah thanks, you seem to be right. We will be extracting table from a none
> > > > pmd. Perhaps we should still bail out for !pxd_present() but without the
> > > > warning, which the fix commit used to do.
> > > 
> > > Right. We just make sure that all callers of pmd_free_pte_page() already
> > > check for it.
> > > 
> > > I'd just do something like:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > index 8fcf59ba39db7..e98dd7af147d5 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > @@ -1274,10 +1274,8 @@ int pmd_free_pte_page(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long
> > > addr)
> > > 
> > >           pmd = READ_ONCE(*pmdp);
> > > 
> > > -       if (!pmd_table(pmd)) {
> > > -               VM_WARN_ON(1);
> > > -               return 1;
> > > -       }
> > > +       VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_present(pmd));
> > > +       VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_table(pmd));
> > 
> > And also return 1?
> 
> I'll leave that to Catalin + Will.
> 
> I'm not a friend for adding runtime-overhead for soemthing that should not
> happen and be caught early during testing -> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE().

I definitely think we should return early if the pmd isn't a table.
Otherwise, we could end up descending into God-knows-what!

Will