lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: fix pmd_leaf()
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:26:53PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> The pmd_leaf() is used to test a leaf mapped PMD, however, it misses
> the PROT_NONE mapped PMD on arm64. Fix it. A real world issue [1]
> caused by this was reported by Qian Cai.
>
> Link: https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/24798260/ [1]
> Fixes: 8aa82df3c123 ("arm64: mm: add p?d_leaf() definitions")
> Reported-by: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - Replace pmd_present() with pmd_val() since we expect pmd_leaf() works
> well on non-present pmd case.
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index ad9b221963d4..00cdd2d895d3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ extern pgprot_t phys_mem_access_prot(struct file *file, unsigned long pfn,
> PMD_TYPE_TABLE)
> #define pmd_sect(pmd) ((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == \
> PMD_TYPE_SECT)
> -#define pmd_leaf(pmd) pmd_sect(pmd)
> +#define pmd_leaf(pmd) (pmd_val(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT))
> #define pmd_bad(pmd) (!pmd_table(pmd))

I'm still trying to get my head around the desired semantics here.

If we want to fix the original report, then we need to take PROT_NONE
entries into account. The easiest way to do that is, as you originally
suggested, by using pmd_present():

#define pmd_leaf(pmd) (pmd_present(pmd) && !pmd_table(pmd))

But now you seem to be saying that !pmd_present() entries should also be
considered as pmd_leaf() -- is there a real need for that?

If so, then I think this simply becomes:

#define pmd_leaf(pmd) (!pmd_table(pmd))

which is, amusingly, identical to pmd_bad().

The documentation/comment that Steven referred to also desperately needs
clarifying as it currently states:

"Only meaningful when called on a valid entry."

whatever that means.

Finally, if this has implications beyond PROT_NONE (as I think you're
suggesting in your v2) then pud_leaf() probably needs similar treatment.
And we can remove pmd_sect() altogether if we no longer need it.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-13 12:20    [W:0.055 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site