linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] mm/zone_device: Add order argument to folio

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: <86D91C8B-C3EA-4836-8DC2-829499477618@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:46:57 -0500
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Balbir Singh <balbirs@...dia.com>,
 Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@...el.com>, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
 Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
 "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@...nel.org>,
 Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
 Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
 Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
 Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] mm/zone_device: Add order argument to folio_free
 callback

On 12 Jan 2026, at 11:50, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:31:04AM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> folio_free()
>>>
>>> 1) Allocator finds free memory
>>> 2) zone_device_page_init() allocates the memory and makes refcount=1
>>> 3) __folio_put() knows the recount 0.
>>> 4) free_zone_device_folio() calls folio_free(), but it doesn't
>>>    actually need to undo prep_compound_page() because *NOTHING* can
>>>    use the page pointer at this point.
>>> 5) Driver puts the memory back into the allocator and now #1 can
>>>    happen. It knows how much memory to put back because folio->order
>>>    is valid from #2
>>> 6) #1 happens again, then #2 happens again and the folio is in the
>>>    right state for use. The successor #2 fully undoes the work of the
>>>    predecessor #2.
>>
>> But how can a successor #2 undo the work if the second #1 only allocates
>> half of the original folio? For example, an order-9 at PFN 0 is
>> allocated and freed, then an order-8 at PFN 0 is allocated and another
>> order-8 at PFN 256 is allocated. How can two #2s undo the same order-9
>> without corrupting each other’s data?
>
> What do you mean? The fundamental rule is you can't read the folio or
> the order outside folio_free once it's refcount reaches 0.

There is no such a rule. In core MM, folio_split(), which splits a high
order folio to low order ones, freezes the folio (turning refcount to 0)
and manipulates the folio order and all tail pages compound_head to
restructure the folio. Your fundamental rule breaks this.
Allowing compound information to stay after a folio is freed means
you cannot tell whether a folio is under split or freed.

>
> So the successor #2 will write updated heads and order to the order 8
> pages at PFN 0 and the ones starting at PFN 256 will remain with
> garbage.
>
> This is OK because nothing is allowed to read them as their refcount
> is 0.
>
> If later PFN256 is allocated then it will get updated head and order
> at the same time it's refcount becomes 1.
>
> There is corruption and they don't corrupt each other's data.
>
>>> If the allocator is using the struct page memory then step #5 should
>>> also clean up the struct page with the allocator data before returning
>>> it to the allocator.
>>
>> Do you mean ->folio_free() callback should undo prep_compound_page()
>> instead?
>
> I wouldn't say undo, I was very careful to say it needs to get the
> struct page memory into a state that the allocator algorithm expects,
> whatever that means.
>
> Jason

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi