linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm-new v3 1/1] mm/khugepaged: abort collapse scan on non-swap entries

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: <95a223b1-8d57-40c3-8226-678b1db233aa@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 17:11:12 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, baohua@...nel.org,
 baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, dev.jain@....com, hughd@...gle.com,
 ioworker0@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, mpenttil@...hat.com, npache@...hat.com,
 ryan.roberts@....com, ziy@...dia.com, richard.weiyang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-new v3 1/1] mm/khugepaged: abort collapse scan on
 non-swap entries

On 14.10.25 16:39, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:26:20PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2025/10/14 19:08, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 11:26:57AM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>>> index abe54f0043c7..bec3e268dc76 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>>> @@ -1020,6 +1020,11 @@ static int __collapse_huge_page_swapin(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>>    		if (!is_swap_pte(vmf.orig_pte))
>>>>    			continue;
>>>>
>>>> +		if (non_swap_entry(pte_to_swp_entry(vmf.orig_pte))) {
>>>> +			result = SCAN_PTE_NON_PRESENT;
>>>> +			goto out;
>>>> +		}
>>>
>>> OK seems in line with what we were discussing before...
>>
>> Yep. That's the idea :)
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>>    		vmf.pte = pte;
>>>>    		vmf.ptl = ptl;
>>>>    		ret = do_swap_page(&vmf);
>>>> @@ -1281,7 +1286,23 @@ static int hpage_collapse_scan_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>>    	for (addr = start_addr, _pte = pte; _pte < pte + HPAGE_PMD_NR;
>>>>    	     _pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>>    		pte_t pteval = ptep_get(_pte);
>>>> -		if (is_swap_pte(pteval)) {
>>>> +		if (pte_none(pteval) || is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(pteval))) {
>>>> +			++none_or_zero;
>>>> +			if (!userfaultfd_armed(vma) &&
>>>> +			    (!cc->is_khugepaged ||
>>>> +			     none_or_zero <= khugepaged_max_ptes_none)) {
>>>> +				continue;
>>>> +			} else {
>>>> +				result = SCAN_EXCEED_NONE_PTE;
>>>> +				count_vm_event(THP_SCAN_EXCEED_NONE_PTE);
>>>> +				goto out_unmap;
>>>> +			}
>>>> +		} else if (!pte_present(pteval)) {
>>>> +			if (non_swap_entry(pte_to_swp_entry(pteval))) {
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for pointing that out!
> 
> You've deleted what I've said here and also not indicated whether you'll do what
> I asked :)
> 
> Please be clearer...
> 
>>
>>> Hm but can't this be pte_protnone() at this stage (or something else)? And then
>>
>> Yeah. The funny thing is, a protnone pte cannot actually get here, IIUC.
>>
>> ```
>> static inline int pte_protnone(pte_t pte)
>> {
>> 	return (pte_flags(pte) & (_PAGE_PROTNONE | _PAGE_PRESENT))
>> 		== _PAGE_PROTNONE;
>> }
>>
>> static inline int pte_present(pte_t a)
>> {
>> 	return pte_flags(a) & (_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_PROTNONE);
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> On x86, pte_present() returns true for a protnone pte. And I'd assume
>> other archs behave similarly ...
> 
> This was one example, we may make changes in the future that result in entries
> that are non-present but also non-swap.
> 
> I don't see the point in eliminating this check based on an implicit, open-coded
> assumption that this can never be the case, this is just asking for trouble.
> 
>>
>>> we're just assuming pte_to_swp_entry() is operating on a swap entry when it in
>>> fact might not be?
>>>
>>> Couldn't we end up with false positives here?
>>
>> Emm, I think we're good here and the code is doing the right thing.
> 
> I mean sorry but just - NO - to doing swap operations based on open-coded checks
> that you implicitly feel must imply a swap entry.
> 
> This makes the code a lot more confusing, it opens us up to accidentally
> breaking things in future and has little to no benefit, I don't see why we're
> doing it.
> 
> I don't think every little 'aha X must imply Y so just eliminate Z' idea need be
> implemented, this feels like a sort of 'mathematical reduction of code ignoring
> all other factors'.

Not sure I follow. If something is !none && !present it's what we call a 
swap PTE (that includes actual swap and non-swap PTEs).

We have the exact same code flow for example in 
copy_pte_range()->copy_nonpresent_pte() and I don't see a problem with it.

If we were to ever change what we call a "swap PTE" (I don't think so?) 
we'd have to fix stuff all over the place.

Maybe I get the concern here wrong?

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb