[PATCH v4 2/9] riscv: Restore the pfn in a NAPOT pte when manipulated by core mm code

[Alexandre Ghiti]

Hi Matthew,

Sorry for the very late reply, the flu hit me!

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 2:51 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy at infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:35:23AM +0100, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_SVNAPOT
> > +static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> > +                         pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr)
> > +{
> > +     if (unlikely(pte_valid_napot(pteval))) {
> > +             unsigned int order = ilog2(nr);
> > +
> > +             if (!is_napot_order(order)) {
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * Something's weird, we are given a NAPOT pte but the
>
> No, nothing is weird.  This can happen under a lot of different
> circumstances.  For example, one might mmap() part of a file and the
> folio containing the data is only partially mapped.

I don't see how/when we would mark a PTE as napot if we try to mmap an
address that is not aligned on the size of a napot mapping or does not
have a napot mapping size.

> The filesystem /
> page cache might choose to use a folio order that isn't one of your
> magic hardware orders.
>
> > +                      * size of the mapping is not a known NAPOT mapping
> > +                      * size, so clear the NAPOT bit and map this without
> > +                      * NAPOT support: core mm only manipulates pte with the
> > +                      * real pfn so we know the pte is valid without the N
> > +                      * bit.
> > +                      */
> > +                     pr_err("Incorrect NAPOT mapping, resetting.\n");
> > +                     pteval = pte_clear_napot(pteval);
> > +             } else {
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * NAPOT ptes that arrive here only have the N bit set
> > +                      * and their pfn does not contain the mapping size, so
> > +                      * set that here.
> > +                      */
> > +                     pteval = pte_mknapot(pteval, order);
>
> You're assuming that pteval is aligned to the order that you've
> calculated, and again that's not true.  For example, the user may have
> called mmap() on range 0x21000-0x40000 of a file which is covered by
> a 128kB folio.  You'll be called with a pteval pointing to 0x21000 and
> calculate that you can put a 64kB entry there ... no.

Yes, I agree with this, then we have to go through the list of ptes
and check if inside the region we are currently setting, some
subregions correspond to a napot mapping.

Thanks for your feedback,

Alex


>
> I'd suggest you do some testing with fstests and xfs as your underlying
> filesystem.  It should catch these kinds of mistakes.