Re: [PATCH] arm64: Check pxd_leaf() instead of !pxd_table() while tearing down page tables

[Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>]

On 15/05/2025 09:53, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 15.05.25 10:47, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/05/25 2:06 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 15.05.25 10:22, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/05/25 1:43 pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 15.05.25 08:34, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>> Commit 9c006972c3fe removes the pxd_present() checks because the caller
>>>>>> checks pxd_present(). But, in case of vmap_try_huge_pud(), the caller
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> checks pud_present(); pud_free_pmd_page() recurses on each pmd through
>>>>>> pmd_free_pte_page(), wherein the pmd may be none.
>>>>> The commit states: "The core code already has a check for pXd_none()",
>>>>> so I assume that assumption was not true in all cases?
>>>>>
>>>>> Should that one problematic caller then check for pmd_none() instead?
>>>>
>>>>    From what I could gather of Will's commit message, my interpretation is
>>>> that the concerned callers are vmap_try_huge_pud and vmap_try_huge_pmd.
>>>> These individually check for pxd_present():
>>>>
>>>> if (pmd_present(*pmd) && !pmd_free_pte_page(pmd, addr))
>>>>      return 0;
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that vmap_try_huge_pud will also iterate on pte entries.
>>>> So if the pud is present, then pud_free_pmd_page -> pmd_free_pte_page
>>>> may encounter a none pmd and trigger a WARN.
>>>
>>> Yeah, pud_free_pmd_page()->pmd_free_pte_page() looks shaky.
>>>
>>> I assume we should either have an explicit pmd_none() check in
>>> pud_free_pmd_page() before calling pmd_free_pte_page(), or one in
>>> pmd_free_pte_page().
>>>
>>> With your patch, we'd be calling pte_free_kernel() on a NULL pointer,
>>> which sounds wrong -- unless I am missing something important.
>>
>> Ah thanks, you seem to be right. We will be extracting table from a none
>> pmd. Perhaps we should still bail out for !pxd_present() but without the
>> warning, which the fix commit used to do.
> 
> Right. We just make sure that all callers of pmd_free_pte_page() already check
> for it.
> 
> I'd just do something like:

I just reviewed the patch and had the same feedback as David. I agree with the
patch below, with some small mods...

> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 8fcf59ba39db7..e98dd7af147d5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -1274,10 +1274,8 @@ int pmd_free_pte_page(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr)
>  
>         pmd = READ_ONCE(*pmdp);
>  
> -       if (!pmd_table(pmd)) {
> -               VM_WARN_ON(1);
> -               return 1;
> -       }
> +       VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_present(pmd));
> +       VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_table(pmd));

You don't need both of these warnings; pmd_table() is only true if the pmd is
present (well actually only if it's _valid_ which is more strict than present),
so the second one is sufficient on its own.

>  
>         table = pte_offset_kernel(pmdp, addr);
>         pmd_clear(pmdp);
> @@ -1305,7 +1303,8 @@ int pud_free_pmd_page(pud_t *pudp, unsigned long addr)

Given you are removing the runtime check and early return in
pmd_free_pte_page(), I think you should modify this function to use the same
style too.

>         next = addr;
>         end = addr + PUD_SIZE;
>         do {
> -               pmd_free_pte_page(pmdp, next);
> +               if (pmd_present(*pmdp))

question: I wonder if it is better to use !pmd_none() as the condition here? It
should either be none or a table at this point, so this allows the warning in
pmd_free_pte_page() to catch more error conditions. No strong opinion though.

Thanks,
Ryan

> +                       pmd_free_pte_page(pmdp, next);
>         } while (pmdp++, next += PMD_SIZE, next != end);
>  
>         pud_clear(pudp);
> 
>