Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/mm: fix incorrect file_map_count for invalid pmd/pud

From: Liu Shixin
Date: Wed Nov 16 2022 - 22:15:36 EST




On 2022/11/16 23:52, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 04:38:11PM +0800, Liu Shixin wrote:
>> The page table check trigger BUG_ON() unexpectedly when split hugepage:
>>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> kernel BUG at mm/page_table_check.c:119!
>> Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP
>> Dumping ftrace buffer:
>> (ftrace buffer empty)
>> Modules linked in:
>> CPU: 7 PID: 210 Comm: transhuge-stres Not tainted 6.1.0-rc3+ #748
>> Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>> pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>> pc : page_table_check_set.isra.0+0x398/0x468
>> lr : page_table_check_set.isra.0+0x1c0/0x468
>> [...]
>> Call trace:
>> page_table_check_set.isra.0+0x398/0x468
>> __page_table_check_pte_set+0x160/0x1c0
>> __split_huge_pmd_locked+0x900/0x1648
>> __split_huge_pmd+0x28c/0x3b8
>> unmap_page_range+0x428/0x858
>> unmap_single_vma+0xf4/0x1c8
>> zap_page_range+0x2b0/0x410
>> madvise_vma_behavior+0xc44/0xe78
>> do_madvise+0x280/0x698
>> __arm64_sys_madvise+0x90/0xe8
>> invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0xdc/0x1d8
>> do_el0_svc+0xf4/0x3f8
>> el0_svc+0x58/0x120
>> el0t_64_sync_handler+0xb8/0xc0
>> el0t_64_sync+0x19c/0x1a0
>> [...]
>>
>> On arm64, pmd_present() will return true even if the pmd is invalid. So
>> in pmdp_invalidate() the file_map_count will not only decrease once but
>> also increase once. Then in set_pte_at(), the file_map_count increase
>> again, and so trigger BUG_ON() unexpectedly.
> It's not clear to me how pmd_present() relates to p?d_user_accessible_page()
> below. How are they related? (or is this a copy-paste error)?
Yes, should be pmd_leaf(). In the previous patch, pmd_present() has already replaced with pmd_leaf().
Thanks for your careful discovery. Will fix in next version.
>> Fix this problem by adding pmd_valid() in pmd_user_accessible_page().
>> Moreover, add pud_valid() for pud_user_accessible_page() too.
>>
>> Fixes: 42b2547137f5 ("arm64/mm: enable ARCH_SUPPORTS_PAGE_TABLE_CHECK")
>> Reported-by: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index edf6625ce965..56e178de75e7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -863,12 +863,12 @@ static inline bool pte_user_accessible_page(pte_t pte)
>>
>> static inline bool pmd_user_accessible_page(pmd_t pmd)
>> {
>> - return pmd_leaf(pmd) && (pmd_user(pmd) || pmd_user_exec(pmd));
>> + return pmd_leaf(pmd) && (pmd_user(pmd) || pmd_user_exec(pmd)) && pmd_valid(pmd);
>> }
>>
>> static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud)
>> {
>> - return pud_leaf(pud) && pud_user(pud);
>> + return pud_leaf(pud) && pud_user(pud) && pud_valid(pud);
> I think these p?d_valid() checks should be first for clarity, since the other
> bits aren't necessarily meaningful for !valid entries.
Thanks for your advice.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> .
>