On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 05:35:02PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > Looping in Ulad who is best placed to respond on this. > > Ulad could you look at the below? Thanks! :) > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 10:32:48AM +0800, Hao Ge wrote: > > Hi Suren、David、Lorenzo > > > > On 2026/9/17 09:12, Hao Ge wrote: > > > Hi Suren > > > > > > On 2026/9/17 03:07, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 9:31 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 11:00 PM Hao Ge <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Suren > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for you review. > > >>>> > > >>>> On 2026/9/16 05:09, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 11:59 PM Hao Ge <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The reservation is already stored in the maple tree when > > >>>>>> vm_module_tags_populate() fails. A failed load never unloads the > > >>>>>> module, so nothing releases the entry. Release it and roll > > >>>>>> module_tags.size back. Without the rollback a concurrent load that > > >>>>>> already passed needs_section_mem() can reuse the freed gap, skip > > >>>>>> vm_module_tags_populate() and write to unmapped memory. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> vmap_pages_range() may have installed some PTEs before failing. A > > >>>>>> retry to populate the same range would BUG on them, so undo them, > > >>>>>> but only if vmap actually ran. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Fixes: 4835f747d3ed ("alloc_tag: support for page allocation tag > > >>>>>> compression") > > >>>>>> Fixes: 0f9b685626da ("alloc_tag: populate memory for module tags as > > >>>>>> needed") > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If a patch fixes two other patches, it likely needs to be split so > > >>>>> that each part fixes one patch only. But read on please. I'm not sure > > >>>>> if one of the fixes is correct. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Kept them in one patch because they only make sense together. > > >>>> > > >>>> After a failed populate the reservation is released and the > > >>>> size rolled back, so the next load takes the same gap and calls > > >>>> vm_module_tags_populate() again, and that retry would trip over > > >>>> the PTEs the failed vmap left behind. > > >>>> > > >>>> Without the rollback a load that already passed needs_section_mem() > > >>>> just reuses the gap, skips populate and writes to unmapped memory. > > >>>> So splitting them leaves each half broken. > > >>> > > >>> Yeah, that's why I think vmap_pages_range() cleanup should be a > > >>> completely separate patch with vmap_pages_range() doing cleanup > > >>> itself. > > >>> > > > > > > I think I get where you're coming from now. > > > Thanks for taking the time to explain. > > > > > >>>> > > >>>>>> Reported-by: Sashiko <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> Cc: [email protected] > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hao Ge <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> --- > > >>>>>> mm/alloc_tag.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/alloc_tag.c b/mm/alloc_tag.c > > >>>>>> index 2070e682fe10..95ddf5b743d0 100644 > > >>>>>> --- a/mm/alloc_tag.c > > >>>>>> +++ b/mm/alloc_tag.c > > >>>>>> @@ -804,6 +804,13 @@ static int vm_module_tags_populate(void) > > >>>>>> next_page, PAGE_SHIFT) < 0) { > > >>>>>> release_pages_arg arg = { .pages = next_page > > >>>>>> }; > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> + /* > > >>>>>> + * vmap_pages_range() only runs once all > > >>>>>> pages were > > >>>>>> + * allocated, and it may have installed some > > >>>>>> mappings > > >>>>>> + * before failing. Undo them. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If vmap_pages_range() failed to map the range, why should we need to > > >>>>> undo it? If it indeed leaves some partial mapping when failing then I > > >>>>> would argue that vmap_pages_range() should be undoing these partial > > >>>>> mappings itself before returning the error. > > >>>>> > > >>>> Yeah it does - none of the paths under vmap_pages_range() undo > > >>>> themselves on error. > > >>> > > >>> Hmm. I wonder if this behavior is intentional or requires a fix. The > > >>> only possible reason I can think of is performance but I can't imagine > > >>> a failure to map is a performance-critical case. > > >>> > > >>> +David Hildenbrand (Red Hat), +Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) what do you > > >> > > >> Huh, my gmail thinks you are still at your previous companies :) > > >> > > > > > > I manually fixed it on the mailing list for this thread. > > > > > >>> guys think? Shouldn't vmap_pages_range() undo its possible partial > > >>> mapping when it fails? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> pcpu_map_pages does perform cleanup on its own as well. There may be > > >>>> other similar sites. > > >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.3-rc3/source/mm/percpu-vm.c#L255 > > >>>> so I did the same here. > > >>>> > > >>>> If we really want vmap_pages_range() to handle this cleanup > > >>>> internally, I believe that would > > >>>> be a relatively large change, and we would need to consider many more > > >>>> cases. So I think we keep > > >>>> the current behaviour for now. > > >>> > > >>> Yeah, I understand it would require a deeper cut but if that's the > > >>> right way to handle this we might as well do that. Let's see what MM > > >>> folks think. > > >>> > > > > > > Sounds good to me. Let's wait and hear what the MM folks say. > > > > > > > I just looked into the call sites for __vmap_pages_range. > > And I found there's a bug in one vmalloc caller [1]. > > When gfp_mask has __GFP_NOFAIL, the code keeps retrying > > __vmap_pages_range. If there are leftover PTE mappings, > > this can trigger a BUG(); [2] > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.3-rc3/source/mm/vmalloc.c#L3946 [1] > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.3-rc3/source/mm/vmalloc.c#L121 [2] > > I think best person to look at this is Ulad as vmalloc is his baby :) > > Ulad, what do you think? > > Thread is at > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ for > context. > Uh.. I missed this. Let me check!
-- Uladzislau Rezki
