Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mm: khugepaged: fix swap entry value to folio_pfn()
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-09-07 12:26:06
Also in:
lkml, stable
On 8/28/26 07:59, Vernon Yang wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Vernon Yang <redacted> When the swap entries found exceed max_ptes_swap, the loop is left via break with folio still holding the xarray value that encodes the swap entry, not valid folio pointer. That value is passed to trace_mm_khugepaged_scan_file(), which feeds it to folio_pfn(). On FLATMEM and SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, the page_to_pfn() is plain pointer arithmetic, so the trace event merely prints bogus scan_pfn. On classic SPARSEMEM, the page_to_pfn() reads page->flags, dereferencing the tiny encoded integer and oopsing khugepaged whenever the trace event is enabled. So when folio is the swap entry value, simply set pfn to -1, just like exhausted scan naturally. And the folio_put() has maybe dropped the last reference of folio. The trace_mm_khugepaged_scan_file() is left with a dangling folio pointer. so using the folio_pfn() before dropping the reference, closing use-after-free window. About calling the respective trace_xxx() functions separately on success and failure, refer to [1]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ao6jVbVHLUmuY2UA@gremlin/ (local) Fixes: d41fd2016ed0 ("mm/khugepaged: add tracepoint to hpage_collapse_scan_file()") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Vernon Yang <redacted> --- include/trace/events/huge_memory.h | 6 +++--- mm/khugepaged.c | 11 ++++++++++- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h index 5a48c5406cce..7b526528f85b 100644 --- a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h +++ b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h@@ -178,10 +178,10 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_collapse_huge_page_swapin, TRACE_EVENT(mm_khugepaged_scan_file, - TP_PROTO(struct mm_struct *mm, struct folio *folio, struct file *file, + TP_PROTO(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long pfn, struct file *file, int present, int swap, int result), - TP_ARGS(mm, folio, file, present, swap, result), + TP_ARGS(mm, pfn, file, present, swap, result), TP_STRUCT__entry( __field(struct mm_struct *, mm)@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_khugepaged_scan_file, TP_fast_assign( __entry->mm = mm; - __entry->pfn = folio ? folio_pfn(folio) : -1; + __entry->pfn = pfn; __assign_str(filename); __entry->present = present; __entry->swap = swap;diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c index 75639298efc2..b597a3e68606 100644 --- a/mm/khugepaged.c +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c@@ -2683,6 +2683,7 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_scan_file(struct mm_struct *mm, int present, swap; int node = NUMA_NO_NODE; enum scan_result result = SCAN_SUCCEED; + unsigned long failed_pfn = -1; present = 0; swap = 0;@@ -2715,6 +2716,7 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_scan_file(struct mm_struct *mm, if (is_pmd_order(folio_order(folio))) { result = SCAN_PTE_MAPPED_HUGEPAGE; + failed_pfn = folio_pfn(folio); /* * PMD-sized THP implies that we can only try * retracting the PTE table.@@ -2726,6 +2728,7 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_scan_file(struct mm_struct *mm, node = folio_nid(folio); if (collapse_scan_abort(node, cc)) { result = SCAN_SCAN_ABORT; + failed_pfn = folio_pfn(folio); folio_put(folio); break; }@@ -2733,12 +2736,14 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_scan_file(struct mm_struct *mm, if (!folio_test_lru(folio)) { result = SCAN_PAGE_LRU; + failed_pfn = folio_pfn(folio); folio_put(folio); break; } if (folio_expected_ref_count(folio) + 1 != folio_ref_count(folio)) { result = SCAN_PAGE_COUNT; + failed_pfn = folio_pfn(folio); folio_put(folio); break; }@@ -2771,9 +2776,13 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_scan_file(struct mm_struct *mm, } else { result = collapse_file(mm, addr, file, start, cc); } + trace_mm_khugepaged_scan_file(mm, -1, file, present, swap, + SCAN_SUCCEED); + } else { + trace_mm_khugepaged_scan_file(mm, failed_pfn, file, present, + swap, result); }
Just curious (maybe Lorenzo suggested that?), why separate out the SCAN_SUCCEED stuff? When result == SCAN_SUCCEED, failed_pfn == -1 no? We set failed_pfn now only when setting result ... Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org> -- Cheers, David