* [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