mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org
Cc: gshan@redhat.com, rppt@kernel.org, steven.price@arm.com,
	suzuki.poulose@arm.com, tianyaxiong@kylinos.cn, ardb@kernel.org,
	david@redhat.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, urezki@gmail.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: pageattr: Explicitly bail out when changing permissions for vmalloc_huge mappings
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 13:26:28 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <831e9e0c-a61b-40d8-a8d2-747b760ba6b3@os.amperecomputing.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250328062103.79462-1-dev.jain@arm.com>



On 3/27/25 11:21 PM, Dev Jain wrote:
> arm64 uses apply_to_page_range to change permissions for kernel VA mappings,
> which does not support changing permissions for leaf mappings. This function
> will change permissions until it encounters a leaf mapping, and will bail
> out. To avoid this partial change, explicitly disallow changing permissions
> for VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP mappings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> index 39fd1f7ff02a..8337c88eec69 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr, int numpages,
>   	 * we are operating on does not result in such splitting.
>   	 *
>   	 * Let's restrict ourselves to mappings created by vmalloc (or vmap).
> -	 * Those are guaranteed to consist entirely of page mappings, and
> +	 * Disallow VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP vmalloc mappings so that
>   	 * splitting is never needed.
>   	 *
>   	 * So check whether the [addr, addr + size) interval is entirely
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr, int numpages,
>   	area = find_vm_area((void *)addr);
>   	if (!area ||
>   	    end > (unsigned long)kasan_reset_tag(area->addr) + area->size ||
> -	    !(area->flags & VM_ALLOC))
> +	    ((area->flags & (VM_ALLOC | VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP)) != VM_ALLOC))
>   		return -EINVAL;

I happened to find this patch when I was looking into fixing "splitting 
is never needed" comment to reflect the latest change with BBML2_NOABORT 
and tried to relax this restriction. I agree with the justification for 
this patch to make the code more robust for permission update on partial 
range. But the following linear mapping permission update code seems 
still assume partial range update never happens:

for (i = 0; i < area->nr_pages; i++) {

It iterates all pages for this vm area from the first page then update 
their permissions. So I think we should do the below to make it more 
robust to partial range update like this patch did:

--- a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
@@ -185,8 +185,9 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr, 
int numpages,
          */
         if (rodata_full && (pgprot_val(set_mask) == PTE_RDONLY ||
                             pgprot_val(clear_mask) == PTE_RDONLY)) {
-               for (i = 0; i < area->nr_pages; i++) {
-  __change_memory_common((u64)page_address(area->pages[i]),
+               unsigned long idx = (start - (unsigned long)area->addr) 
 >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+               for (i = 0; i < numpages; i++) {
+  __change_memory_common((u64)page_address(area->pages[idx++]),
                                                PAGE_SIZE, set_mask, 
clear_mask);
                 }
         }

Just build tested. Does it look reasonable?

Thanks,
Yang


>   
>   	if (!numpages)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-10-09 20:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-28  6:21 Dev Jain
2025-03-28 14:39 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-03-30  7:12   ` Dev Jain
2025-03-28 22:50 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-03-29  9:46   ` Ryan Roberts
2025-03-30  7:31     ` Dev Jain
2025-03-30  7:32     ` Mike Rapoport
2025-03-30  8:23       ` Dev Jain
2025-03-30  8:36         ` Mike Rapoport
2025-04-01  9:43       ` Ryan Roberts
2025-04-01 10:12         ` Mike Rapoport
2025-04-01 10:37           ` Ryan Roberts
2025-03-30  7:13   ` Dev Jain
2025-10-09 20:26 ` Yang Shi [this message]
2025-10-10  9:52   ` Ryan Roberts
2025-10-10 15:52     ` Yang Shi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=831e9e0c-a61b-40d8-a8d2-747b760ba6b3@os.amperecomputing.com \
    --to=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
    --cc=gshan@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=steven.price@arm.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=tianyaxiong@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®