[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <214e78a0-7774-4b1e-8d85-9a66d2384744@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 14:56:25 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, peterx@...hat.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, surenb@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix missing PTE unmap for non-migration
entries
On 31.07.25 14:37, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 05:42:16PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.07.25 17:33, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 05:10:44PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 01.07.25 02:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 23:19:58 -0400 Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When handling non-swap entries in move_pages_pte(), the error handling
>>>>>> for entries that are NOT migration entries fails to unmap the page table
>>>>>> entries before jumping to the error handling label.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This results in a kmap/kunmap imbalance which on CONFIG_HIGHPTE systems
>>>>>> triggers a WARNING in kunmap_local_indexed() because the kmap stack is
>>>>>> corrupted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example call trace on ARM32 (CONFIG_HIGHPTE enabled):
>>>>>> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 633 at mm/highmem.c:622 kunmap_local_indexed+0x178/0x17c
>>>>>> Call trace:
>>>>>> kunmap_local_indexed from move_pages+0x964/0x19f4
>>>>>> move_pages from userfaultfd_ioctl+0x129c/0x2144
>>>>>> userfaultfd_ioctl from sys_ioctl+0x558/0xd24
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue was introduced with the UFFDIO_MOVE feature but became more
>>>>>> frequent with the addition of guard pages (commit 7c53dfbdb024 ("mm: add
>>>>>> PTE_MARKER_GUARD PTE marker")) which made the non-migration entry code
>>>>>> path more commonly executed during userfaultfd operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix this by ensuring PTEs are properly unmapped in all non-swap entry
>>>>>> paths before jumping to the error handling label, not just for migration
>>>>>> entries.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't get it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
>>>>>> @@ -1384,14 +1384,15 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
>>>>>> entry = pte_to_swp_entry(orig_src_pte);
>>>>>> if (non_swap_entry(entry)) {
>>>>>> + pte_unmap(src_pte);
>>>>>> + pte_unmap(dst_pte);
>>>>>> + src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
>>>>>> if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
>>>>>> - pte_unmap(src_pte);
>>>>>> - pte_unmap(dst_pte);
>>>>>> - src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
>>>>>> migration_entry_wait(mm, src_pmd, src_addr);
>>>>>> err = -EAGAIN;
>>>>>> - } else
>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>> err = -EFAULT;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>
>>>>> where we have
>>>>>
>>>>> out:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (dst_pte)
>>>>> pte_unmap(dst_pte);
>>>>> if (src_pte)
>>>>> pte_unmap(src_pte);
>>>>
>>>> AI slop?
>>>
>>> Nah, this one is sadly all me :(
>>
>> Haha, sorry :P
>
> So as I was getting nowhere with this, I asked AI to help me :)
>
> If you're not interested in reading LLM generated code, feel free to
> stop reading now...
>
> After it went over the logs, and a few prompts to point it the right
> way, it ended up generating a patch (below) that made sense, and fixed
> the warning that LKFT was being able to trigger.
>
> If anyone who's more familiar with the code than me (and the AI) agrees
> with the patch and ways to throw their Reviewed-by, I'll send out the
> patch.
Seems to check out for me. In particular, out pte_unmap() everywhere
else in that function (and mremap.c:move_ptes) are ordered properly.
Even if it would not fix the issue, it would be a cleanup :)
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists