Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: fix pmd_leaf()

[Steven Price]

On 04/04/2022 10:19, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 10:49:28AM +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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  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 94e147e5456c..09eaae46a19b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ 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_present(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT))
>>  #define pmd_bad(pmd)		(!pmd_table(pmd))
>>  
>>  #define pmd_leaf_size(pmd)	(pmd_cont(pmd) ? CONT_PMD_SIZE : PMD_SIZE)
> 
> A bunch of the users of pmd_leaf() already check pmd_present() -- is it
> documented that we need to handle this check inside the macro? afaict x86
> doesn't do this either.

The documentation is with the fallback implementations that always
return 0:

> /*
>  * p?d_leaf() - true if this entry is a final mapping to a physical address.
>  * This differs from p?d_huge() by the fact that they are always available (if
>  * the architecture supports large pages at the appropriate level) even
>  * if CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is not defined.
>  * Only meaningful when called on a valid entry.
>  */

I guess the term "valid entry" is a bit vague but my intention was that
meant p?d_present().

I have to admit I hadn't considered PROT_NONE mappings before.

Steve