linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: clear page->private in free_pages

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: <42b977d1-4873-4b3e-9107-7055836cde11@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:03:16 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 Mikhail Gavrilov <mikhail.v.gavrilov@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
 jackmanb@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, npiggin@...il.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kasong@...cent.com, hughd@...gle.com,
 chrisl@...nel.org, ryncsn@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
 willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: clear page->private in
 free_pages_prepare()

On 2/9/26 17:00, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2026, at 10:46, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> 
>> On 2/9/26 12:17, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>
>>> If the rule is now that when upon freeing in free_pages_prepare() we clear
>>> private in the head page and not tail pages (where we expect the owner of
>>> the page to do it), maybe that check for tail pages should be done in the
>>> is_check_pages_enabled() part of free_pages_prepare().
>>>
>>> Or should the check be also in the split path because somebody can set a
>>> tail private between allocation and split? (and not just inherit it from a
>>> previous allocation that didn't clear it?).
>>
>> We ran into that check in the past, when folio->X overlayed page->private in a tail, and would actually have to be zeroed out.
> 
> Currently, _mm_id (_mm_ids) overlaps with page->private. At split time,
> it should be MM_ID_DUMMY (0), so page->private should be 0 all time.

Yes, it's designed like that; because that check here caught it during 
development :)

> 
>>
>> So it should be part of this splitting code I think.
> 
> It is still better to have the check and fix in place. Why do we want to
> skip device private folio?

I don't understand the question, can you elaborate?

I asked Balbir why the check was dropped in the first place.

-- 
Cheers,

David