Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] mm: replace __GFP_NO_CODETAG with ALLOC_NO_CODETAG

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:

New issues:
- [Low] The fallback `#else` definition of `pgalloc_tag_add` was not updated to accept `unsigned int alloc_flags`.

Pre-existing issues:
- [Critical] TOCTOU race in `__alloc_tag_add_early_pfn` leading to an out-of-bounds array write.
--

commit ccee7f6d4bcf9d00da38c878e97dd852c5e649b3
Author: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx>

mm: replace __GFP_NO_CODETAG with ALLOC_NO_CODETAG

This commit replaces the mm-internal __GFP_NO_CODETAG flag with a
new alloc_flags bit, ALLOC_NO_CODETAG. It plumbs alloc_flags through
several allocator functions to allow passing this flag directly to the
alloc_tag code.

> diff --git a/mm/alloc_tag.c b/mm/alloc_tag.c
> index d9be1cf5187d9..a32a94e759b94 100644
> --- a/mm/alloc_tag.c
> +++ b/mm/alloc_tag.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -806,7 +795,8 @@ static void __init __alloc_tag_add_early_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
>  	do {
>  		pool = READ_ONCE(current_pfn_pool);
>  		if (!pool || atomic_read(&pool->count) >= PFN_POOL_SIZE) {
> -			struct page *new_page = alloc_page(__GFP_HIGH | __GFP_NO_CODETAG);
> +			struct page *new_page = __alloc_pages(__GFP_HIGH, 0, numa_mem_id(),
> +							      NULL, ALLOC_NO_CODETAG);
>  			struct pfn_pool *new;

[Severity: Critical]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is there a time-of-check to time-of-use
race condition here?

If multiple CPUs are active during the deferred init window, could they
concurrently observe the same remaining capacity?

CPU1:
    if (!pool || atomic_read(&pool->count) >= PFN_POOL_SIZE)

CPU2:
    if (!pool || atomic_read(&pool->count) >= PFN_POOL_SIZE)

If both see 1 remaining slot, won't they both proceed to call
atomic_fetch_add() on the pool counter further down in this function?
This could cause an out-of-bounds array write at pool->pfns[PFN_POOL_SIZE].

[ ... ]
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 026f33f217036..803b32e5a5e47 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1263,17 +1263,17 @@ void __pgalloc_tag_add(struct page *page, struct task_struct *task,
>  		alloc_tag_add_early_pfn(page_to_pfn(page), alloc_flags);
>  		if (task->alloc_tag)
>  			alloc_tag_set_inaccurate(task->alloc_tag);
>  	}
>  }
>  
>  static inline void pgalloc_tag_add(struct page *page, struct task_struct *task,
> -				   unsigned int nr, gfp_t gfp_flags)
> +				   unsigned int nr, unsigned int alloc_flags)
>  {
>  	if (mem_alloc_profiling_enabled())
> -		__pgalloc_tag_add(page, task, nr, gfp_flags);
> +		__pgalloc_tag_add(page, task, nr, alloc_flags);
>  }

[Severity: Low]
Does this change miss updating the fallback definition of pgalloc_tag_add()
when memory allocation profiling is disabled?

If the kernel is compiled without mem-alloc profiling, the dummy function
signature appears to still use the old type:

static inline void pgalloc_tag_add(struct page *page, struct task_struct *task,
                   unsigned int nr, gfp_t gfp_flags) {}

Since callers like post_alloc_hook() are now passing an unsigned int
for alloc_flags, won't this cause a Sparse type mismatch warning because
gfp_t is a restricted bitwise type?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260629-alloc-trylock-v3-0-57bef0eadbc2@xxxxxxxxxx?part=15