On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:35:23AM +0100, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_SVNAPOT
> +static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> + pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr)
> +{
> + if (unlikely(pte_valid_napot(pteval))) {
> + unsigned int order = ilog2(nr);
> +
> + if (!is_napot_order(order)) {
> + /*
> + * Something's weird, we are given a NAPOT pte but the
No, nothing is weird. This can happen under a lot of different
circumstances. For example, one might mmap() part of a file and the
folio containing the data is only partially mapped. The filesystem /
page cache might choose to use a folio order that isn't one of your
magic hardware orders.
> + * size of the mapping is not a known NAPOT mapping
> + * size, so clear the NAPOT bit and map this without
> + * NAPOT support: core mm only manipulates pte with the
> + * real pfn so we know the pte is valid without the N
> + * bit.
> + */
> + pr_err("Incorrect NAPOT mapping, resetting.\n");
> + pteval = pte_clear_napot(pteval);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * NAPOT ptes that arrive here only have the N bit set
> + * and their pfn does not contain the mapping size, so
> + * set that here.
> + */
> + pteval = pte_mknapot(pteval, order);
You're assuming that pteval is aligned to the order that you've
calculated, and again that's not true. For example, the user may have
called mmap() on range 0x21000-0x40000 of a file which is covered by
a 128kB folio. You'll be called with a pteval pointing to 0x21000 and
calculate that you can put a 64kB entry there ... no.
I'd suggest you do some testing with fstests and xfs as your underlying
filesystem. It should catch these kinds of mistakes.
