Re: [PATCH v1 10/16] mm/vmalloc: Warn on improper use of vunmap_range()

[Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>]

On 2/5/25 20:39, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> A call to vmalloc_huge() may cause memory blocks to be mapped at pmd or
> pud level. But it is possible to subsquently call vunmap_range() on a

s/subsquently/subsequently

> sub-range of the mapped memory, which partially overlaps a pmd or pud.
> In this case, vmalloc unmaps the entire pmd or pud so that the
> no-overlapping portion is also unmapped. Clearly that would have a bad
> outcome, but it's not something that any callers do today as far as I
> can tell. So I guess it's jsut expected that callers will not do this.

s/jsut/just

> 
> However, it would be useful to know if this happened in future; let's
> add a warning to cover the eventuality.

This is a reasonable check to prevent bad outcomes later.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index a6e7acebe9ad..fcdf67d5177a 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -374,8 +374,10 @@ static void vunmap_pmd_range(pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>  		if (cleared || pmd_bad(*pmd))
>  			*mask |= PGTBL_PMD_MODIFIED;
>  
> -		if (cleared)
> +		if (cleared) {
> +			WARN_ON(next - addr < PMD_SIZE);
>  			continue;
> +		}
>  		if (pmd_none_or_clear_bad(pmd))
>  			continue;
>  		vunmap_pte_range(pmd, addr, next, mask);
> @@ -399,8 +401,10 @@ static void vunmap_pud_range(p4d_t *p4d, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>  		if (cleared || pud_bad(*pud))
>  			*mask |= PGTBL_PUD_MODIFIED;
>  
> -		if (cleared)
> +		if (cleared) {
> +			WARN_ON(next - addr < PUD_SIZE);
>  			continue;
> +		}
>  		if (pud_none_or_clear_bad(pud))
>  			continue;
>  		vunmap_pmd_range(pud, addr, next, mask);
Why not also include such checks in vunmap_p4d_range() and __vunmap_range_noflush()
for corresponding P4D and PGD levels as well ?