linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] mm: Avoid calling folio_page() with an out-of-bounds index
@ 2026-02-25  9:26 Li Zhe
  2026-02-25 10:05 ` Dev Jain
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Li Zhe @ 2026-02-25  9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: akpm, david, lorenzo.stoakes, Liam.Howlett, vbabka, rppt, surenb,
	mhocko, ankur.a.arora
  Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel, lizhe.67

In folio_zero_user(), the page pointer is calculated via folio_page()
before checking if the number of pages to be cleared is greater than zero.
Furthermore, folio_page() does not verify that the page number lies
within folio.

When 'addr_hint' is near the end of a large folio, the range 'r[0]'
represents an empty interval. In this scenario, 'nr_pages' will be
calculated as 0 and 'r[0].start' can be an index that is out-of-bounds
for folio_page(). The code unconditionally calls folio_page() on a wrong
index, even though the subsequent clearing logic is correctly skipped.

While this does not cause a functional bug today, calculating a page
pointer for an out-of-bounds index is logically unsound and fragile. It
could pose a risk for future refactoring or trigger warnings from static
analysis tools.

To fix this, move the call to folio_page() inside the 'if (nr_pages > 0)'
block. This ensures that the page pointer is only calculated when it is
actually needed for a valid, non-empty range of pages, thus making the code
more robust and logically correct.

Signed-off-by: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
---
 mm/memory.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 07778814b4a8..6f8c55d604b5 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -7343,12 +7343,14 @@ void folio_zero_user(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr_hint)
 	r[0] = DEFINE_RANGE(r[2].end + 1, pg.end);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(r); i++) {
-		const unsigned long addr = base_addr + r[i].start * PAGE_SIZE;
 		const long nr_pages = (long)range_len(&r[i]);
-		struct page *page = folio_page(folio, r[i].start);
 
-		if (nr_pages > 0)
+		if (nr_pages > 0) {
+			const unsigned long addr = base_addr + r[i].start * PAGE_SIZE;
+			struct page *page = folio_page(folio, r[i].start);
+
 			clear_contig_highpages(page, addr, nr_pages);
+		}
 	}
 }
 
-- 
2.20.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mm: Avoid calling folio_page() with an out-of-bounds index
  2026-02-25  9:26 [PATCH] mm: Avoid calling folio_page() with an out-of-bounds index Li Zhe
@ 2026-02-25 10:05 ` Dev Jain
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dev Jain @ 2026-02-25 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Li Zhe, akpm, david, lorenzo.stoakes, Liam.Howlett, vbabka, rppt,
	surenb, mhocko, ankur.a.arora
  Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel



On 25/02/26 2:56 pm, Li Zhe wrote:
> In folio_zero_user(), the page pointer is calculated via folio_page()
> before checking if the number of pages to be cleared is greater than zero.
> Furthermore, folio_page() does not verify that the page number lies
> within folio.
> 
> When 'addr_hint' is near the end of a large folio, the range 'r[0]'
> represents an empty interval. In this scenario, 'nr_pages' will be
> calculated as 0 and 'r[0].start' can be an index that is out-of-bounds
> for folio_page(). The code unconditionally calls folio_page() on a wrong
> index, even though the subsequent clearing logic is correctly skipped.
> 
> While this does not cause a functional bug today, calculating a page
> pointer for an out-of-bounds index is logically unsound and fragile. It
> could pose a risk for future refactoring or trigger warnings from static
> analysis tools.
> 
> To fix this, move the call to folio_page() inside the 'if (nr_pages > 0)'
> block. This ensures that the page pointer is only calculated when it is
> actually needed for a valid, non-empty range of pages, thus making the code
> more robust and logically correct.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
> ---

Not only the correctness, but even from a perf PoV (folio_zero_user is a
hot path) it may make sense to initialize the variable only when required.

Reviewed-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>


>  mm/memory.c | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 07778814b4a8..6f8c55d604b5 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -7343,12 +7343,14 @@ void folio_zero_user(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr_hint)
>  	r[0] = DEFINE_RANGE(r[2].end + 1, pg.end);
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(r); i++) {
> -		const unsigned long addr = base_addr + r[i].start * PAGE_SIZE;
>  		const long nr_pages = (long)range_len(&r[i]);
> -		struct page *page = folio_page(folio, r[i].start);
>  
> -		if (nr_pages > 0)
> +		if (nr_pages > 0) {
> +			const unsigned long addr = base_addr + r[i].start * PAGE_SIZE;
> +			struct page *page = folio_page(folio, r[i].start);
> +
>  			clear_contig_highpages(page, addr, nr_pages);
> +		}
>  	}
>  }
>  



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2026-02-25 10:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-02-25  9:26 [PATCH] mm: Avoid calling folio_page() with an out-of-bounds index Li Zhe
2026-02-25 10:05 ` Dev Jain

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox