We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
insert_pfn_pud().
Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
require a special cachemode.
Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
Identified by code inspection.
Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
mm/huge_memory.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index d3e66136e41a3..49b98082c5401 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -1516,10 +1516,9 @@ static pud_t maybe_pud_mkwrite(pud_t pud, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
}
static void insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
- pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
+ pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, pgprot_t prot, bool write)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
- pgprot_t prot = vma->vm_page_prot;
pud_t entry;
if (!pud_none(*pud)) {
@@ -1581,7 +1580,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
pfnmap_setup_cachemode_pfn(pfn_t_to_pfn(pfn), &pgprot);
ptl = pud_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pud);
- insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, write);
+ insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, pgprot, write);
spin_unlock(ptl);
return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
@@ -1625,7 +1624,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_folio_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio *folio,
add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PUD_NR);
}
insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn_to_pfn_t(folio_pfn(folio)),
- write);
+ vma->vm_page_prot, write);
spin_unlock(ptl);
return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
--
2.49.0
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:06:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
> insert_pfn_pud().
>
> Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
> require a special cachemode.
>
> Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
>
> Identified by code inspection.
>
> Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Jason
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:06:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
> insert_pfn_pud().
>
> Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
> require a special cachemode.
>
> Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
>
> Identified by code inspection.
>
> Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Nice catch!
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> ---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index d3e66136e41a3..49b98082c5401 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -1516,10 +1516,9 @@ static pud_t maybe_pud_mkwrite(pud_t pud, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> }
>
> static void insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> - pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
> + pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, pgprot_t prot, bool write)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> - pgprot_t prot = vma->vm_page_prot;
> pud_t entry;
>
> if (!pud_none(*pud)) {
> @@ -1581,7 +1580,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
> pfnmap_setup_cachemode_pfn(pfn_t_to_pfn(pfn), &pgprot);
>
> ptl = pud_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pud);
> - insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, write);
> + insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, pgprot, write);
> spin_unlock(ptl);
>
> return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> @@ -1625,7 +1624,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_folio_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio *folio,
> add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PUD_NR);
> }
> insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn_to_pfn_t(folio_pfn(folio)),
> - write);
> + vma->vm_page_prot, write);
> spin_unlock(ptl);
>
> return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> --
> 2.49.0
>
On 12.06.25 17:28, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:06:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
>> insert_pfn_pud().
>>
>> Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
>> require a special cachemode.
>>
>> Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
>>
>> Identified by code inspection.
>>
>> Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>
> Nice catch!
>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Thanks! What's your opinion on stable? Really hard to judge the impact ...
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 05:36:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.06.25 17:28, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:06:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
> > > insert_pfn_pud().
> > >
> > > Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
> > > require a special cachemode.
> > >
> > > Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
> > >
> > > Identified by code inspection.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
Ha! I don't even remember doing that patch... hm did I introduce this -ignoring
cache- thing? Sorry! :P
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> >
> > Nice catch!
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>
> Thanks! What's your opinion on stable? Really hard to judge the impact ...
I think it makes sense? This is currently incorrect so let's do the right thing
and backport.
I think as per Dan it's probably difficult to picture this causing a problem,
but on principle I think this is correct, and I don't see any harm in
backporting?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
On 12.06.25 17:59, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 05:36:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 12.06.25 17:28, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:06:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
>>>> insert_pfn_pud().
>>>>
>>>> Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
>>>> require a special cachemode.
>>>>
>>>> Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
>>>>
>>>> Identified by code inspection.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
>
> Ha! I don't even remember doing that patch... hm did I introduce this -ignoring
> cache- thing? Sorry! :P
:)
>
>>>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Nice catch!
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>>
>> Thanks! What's your opinion on stable? Really hard to judge the impact ...
>
> I think it makes sense? This is currently incorrect so let's do the right thing
> and backport.
>
> I think as per Dan it's probably difficult to picture this causing a problem,
> but on principle I think this is correct, and I don't see any harm in
> backporting?
Same opinion, thanks!
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
David Hildenbrand wrote: > We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to > insert_pfn_pud(). > > Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that > require a special cachemode. This is only a problem if the kernel mapped the pud in advance of userspace mapping it, right? The change looks good. Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> ...but I am struggling with the scenario where this causes problems in practice, where vm_page_prot is the wrong cachemode.
On 12.06.25 06:34, Dan Williams wrote: > David Hildenbrand wrote: >> We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to >> insert_pfn_pud(). >> >> Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that >> require a special cachemode. > > This is only a problem if the kernel mapped the pud in advance of userspace > mapping it, right? Good question, PAT code is confusing. What I understood is that drivers like vfio will register the range with the expected cachemode, and then rely on vm_insert_* to fill out the cachemode for them. Peter explained it in the dicussion here [1] how e.g., vfio triggers that early registration. Regarding vfio, I can see that we do in vfio_pci_core_mmap() unconditionally: vma->vm_page_prot = pgprot_noncached(vma->vm_page_prot); vma->vm_page_prot = pgprot_decrypted(vma->vm_page_prot); and probably rely on us querying the actual cachemode to be used later. vfio can map all kinds of different memory types ... [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/aBDXr-Qp4z0tS50P@x1.local > > The change looks good. > > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > > ...but I am struggling with the scenario where this causes problems in > practice, where vm_page_prot is the wrong cachemode. Yeah, it's all confusing. But as long as we don't conclude that pfnmap_setup_cachemode_pfn() can be removed entirely (esp. also from pte / pmd case), this seems to be the right thing to do and was accidental change in the introducing commit. Is it actually stable material? I don't know, but possibly getting cachemodes wrongs sounds ... bad? -- Cheers, David / dhildenb
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:06:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
> insert_pfn_pud().
>
> Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
> require a special cachemode.
>
> Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
>
> Identified by code inspection.
>
> Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index d3e66136e41a3..49b98082c5401 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -1516,10 +1516,9 @@ static pud_t maybe_pud_mkwrite(pud_t pud, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> }
>
> static void insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> - pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
> + pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, pgprot_t prot, bool write)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> - pgprot_t prot = vma->vm_page_prot;
> pud_t entry;
>
> if (!pud_none(*pud)) {
> @@ -1581,7 +1580,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
> pfnmap_setup_cachemode_pfn(pfn_t_to_pfn(pfn), &pgprot);
>
> ptl = pud_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pud);
> - insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, write);
> + insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, pgprot, write);
> spin_unlock(ptl);
>
> return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> @@ -1625,7 +1624,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_folio_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio *folio,
> add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PUD_NR);
> }
> insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn_to_pfn_t(folio_pfn(folio)),
> - write);
> + vma->vm_page_prot, write);
Actually It's not immediately obvious to me why we don't call track_pfn_insert()
and forward the pgprot here as well. Prior to me adding vmf_insert_folio_pud()
device DAX would call vmf_insert_pfn_pud(), and the intent at least seems to
have been to change pgprot for that (and we did for the PTE/PMD versions).
However now that the ZONE_DEVICE folios are refcounted normally I switched
device dax to using vmf_insert_folio_*() which never changes pgprot based on x86
PAT. So I think we probably need to either add that to vmf_insert_folio_*() or
a new variant or make it the responsibility of callers to figure out the correct
pgprot.
> spin_unlock(ptl);
>
> return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> --
> 2.49.0
>
On 12.06.25 03:56, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:06:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We setup the cache mode but ... don't forward the updated pgprot to
>> insert_pfn_pud().
>>
>> Only a problem on x86-64 PAT when mapping PFNs using PUDs that
>> require a special cachemode.
>>
>> Fix it by using the proper pgprot where the cachemode was setup.
>>
>> Identified by code inspection.
>>
>> Fixes: 7b806d229ef1 ("mm: remove vmf_insert_pfn_xxx_prot() for huge page-table entries")
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> mm/huge_memory.c | 7 +++----
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> index d3e66136e41a3..49b98082c5401 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -1516,10 +1516,9 @@ static pud_t maybe_pud_mkwrite(pud_t pud, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> }
>>
>> static void insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
>> - pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
>> + pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, pgprot_t prot, bool write)
>> {
>> struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>> - pgprot_t prot = vma->vm_page_prot;
>> pud_t entry;
>>
>> if (!pud_none(*pud)) {
>> @@ -1581,7 +1580,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
>> pfnmap_setup_cachemode_pfn(pfn_t_to_pfn(pfn), &pgprot);
>>
>> ptl = pud_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pud);
>> - insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, write);
>> + insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn, pgprot, write);
>> spin_unlock(ptl);
>>
>> return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
>> @@ -1625,7 +1624,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_folio_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio *folio,
>> add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PUD_NR);
>> }
>> insert_pfn_pud(vma, addr, vmf->pud, pfn_to_pfn_t(folio_pfn(folio)),
>> - write);
>> + vma->vm_page_prot, write);
>
> Actually It's not immediately obvious to me why we don't call track_pfn_insert()
> and forward the pgprot here as well.
(track_pfn_insert is now called pfnmap_setup_cachemode_pfn)
Prior to me adding vmf_insert_folio_pud()
> device DAX would call vmf_insert_pfn_pud(), and the intent at least seems to
> have been to change pgprot for that (and we did for the PTE/PMD versions).
It's only for PFNMAP mappings as far as I understand. I think this is
mostly about drivers mapping actual weird stuff with weird memory types
(e.g., vfio mapping mmio etc) into the page tables, that does not have a
struct page.
>
> However now that the ZONE_DEVICE folios are refcounted normally I switched
> device dax to using vmf_insert_folio_*() which never changes pgprot based on x86
> PAT. So I think we probably need to either add that to vmf_insert_folio_*() or
> a new variant or make it the responsibility of callers to figure out the correct
> pgprot.
I would assume that for ZONE_DEVICE the cachemode is always simpler
(e.g., no MMIO?)?
In any case, I would assume ZONE_DEVICE only ended up "accidentally"
triggering it and that it didn't make a difference.
Observe that pfnmap_setup_cachemode_pfn() is only called from
vmf_insert_pfn_*() ... well, and our ugly friend __vm_insert_mixed()
that similarly inserts a PFN mapping.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.