On 2025/6/24 20:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 14.02.25 10:30, Barry Song wrote:[...]
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 89e51a7a9509..8786704bd466 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -1781,6 +1781,25 @@ void folio_remove_rmap_pud(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page,
#endif
}
+/* We support batch unmapping of PTEs for lazyfree large folios */
+static inline bool can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(unsigned long addr,
+ struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep)
+{
+ const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
+ int max_nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
Let's assume we have the first page of a folio mapped at the last page
table entry in our page table.
Good point. I'm curious if it is something we've seen in practice ;)
What prevents folio_pte_batch() from reading outside the page table?
Assuming such a scenario is possible, to prevent any chance of an
out-of-bounds read, how about this change:
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index fb63d9256f09..9aeae811a38b 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -1852,6 +1852,25 @@ static inline bool can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(unsigned long addr,
const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
int max_nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
pte_t pte = ptep_get(ptep);
+ unsigned long end_addr;
+
+ /*
+ * To batch unmap, the entire folio's PTEs must be contiguous
+ * and mapped within the same PTE page table, which corresponds to
+ * a single PMD entry. Before calling folio_pte_batch(), which does
+ * not perform boundary checks itself, we must verify that the
+ * address range covered by the folio does not cross a PMD boundary.
+ */
+ end_addr = addr + (max_nr * PAGE_SIZE) - 1;
+
+ /*
+ * A fast way to check for a PMD boundary cross is to align both
+ * the start and end addresses to the PMD boundary and see if they
+ * are different. If they are, the range spans across at least two
+ * different PMD-managed regions.
+ */
+ if ((addr & PMD_MASK) != (end_addr & PMD_MASK))
+ return false;