[PATCH] kho: make sure folio being restored is actually from KHO

[Pratyush Yadav]

On Tue, Sep 16 2025, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 03:20:51PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>> >> >> @@ -210,16 +226,16 @@ static void kho_restore_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
>> >> >>  struct folio *kho_restore_folio(phys_addr_t phys)
>> >> >>  {
>> >> >>  	struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(PHYS_PFN(phys));
>> >> >> -	unsigned long order;
>> >> >> +	union kho_page_info info;
>> >> >>  
>> >> >>  	if (!page)
>> >> >>  		return NULL;
>> >> >>  
>> >> >> -	order = page->private;
>> >> >> -	if (order > MAX_PAGE_ORDER)
>> >> >> +	info.page_private = page->private;
>> >> >> +	if (info.magic != KHO_PAGE_MAGIC || info.order > MAX_PAGE_ORDER)
>> >
>> > All the impossible checks shoudl be WARN_ON()
>> 
>> The mental model I have is that the place that introduced the
>> "impossible" situation should get the WARN(). So for an incorrect phys
>> address (leading to magic mismatch) or incorrect order (say preserved
>> big range using kho_preserve_phys() and restoring it using
>> kho_restore_folio()), the caller is responsible so it should do the
>> WARN(). Does that make sense?
>
> Callers should not pass illegal phys here, WARN at this point is
> appropriate, and maybe under a debug #ifdef or something like that.
>
> This is to make it clear that "test and fail" is not an acceptable way
> to use this API.

Okay, makes sense. Will add.

>
>> Actually, on another look, this patch implicitly makes sure that
>> unaligned phys always fails. This is because deserialize_bitmap() only
>> sets the magic on the head page which is always aligned by the order.
>> For any unaligned phys, the magic will not match.
>
> Makes sense, maybe a comment?

Will do.

>
>> Makes sense. Do you suggest the magic and order checks to also be under
>> KHO_DEBUG, or should they always be done? I am of the opinion that it
>> makes sense to do them always, but I can also understand the argument
>> for disabling them in production for better performance.
>
> I'm ambivalent :)
>
> For now I'd do it always and leave some debug optimization to a future
> project.

Sounds good. Will add them as always for now.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav