Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: undo partial mappings inside the mapping functions
flat view
From: Hao Ge <hao.ge@linux.dev>
Date: 2026-10-14 07:28:21
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Hi Uladzislau and Suren On 2026/10/14 00:39, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 03:23:14PM +0400, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:quoted
On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 10:36 AM Hao Ge [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
__vmap_pages_range_noflush() and friends can install some PTEs before failing and leave them mapped, and the kernel callers do not agree on who cleans them up. pcpu_map_pages() and kmsan_ioremap_page_range() roll back what they mapped before the failure, while vm_module_tags_populate() and the __GFP_NOFAIL retry loop in __vmalloc_area_node() rely on the mapping functions cleaning up and do not call anything like vunmap_range() themselves. When the same range is mapped again, the attempt hits the leftovers and fails, with a BUG() in vmap_pte_range() for huge mappings and a warning on the small-page path. After discussing with Suren and Ulad, we decided to put the rollback into the entry points of the vmap API rather than into every low-level helper. __vmap_pages_range_noflush() undoes the whole range it was asked to map when it fails, and vmap_page_range() undoes its range for the ioremap-style mappings. The rollback is __vunmap_range_noflush(), it only clears the PTEs, no TLB flush, nothing has touched these mappings. vmap_pages_range_noflush() drops the KMSAN metadata when the data mapping fails, and an empty range bails out with -EINVAL now, which used to BUG_ON() on the small-page path and map nothing at all on the huge-page one. Reported-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org> Suggested-by: Uladyslau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Hao Ge <hao.ge@linux.dev> --- mm/vmalloc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c index db669103dc66..e1b376f57dd2 100644 --- a/mm/vmalloc.c +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c@@ -363,6 +363,9 @@ int vmap_page_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, if (!err) err = kmsan_ioremap_page_range(addr, end, phys_addr, prot, ioremap_max_page_shift); + if (err) + __vunmap_range_noflush(addr, end); + return err; }@@ -683,27 +686,35 @@ int __vmap_pages_range_noflush(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages, unsigned int page_shift) { unsigned int i, nr = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT; + unsigned long start = addr; + int err = 0; + + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(addr >= end)) + return -EINVAL; if (WARN_ON_ONCE(page_shift < PAGE_SHIFT)) return -EINVAL; if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_VMALLOC) || - page_shift == PAGE_SHIFT) - return vmap_small_pages_range_noflush(addr, end, prot, pages); - - for (i = 0; i < nr; i += 1U << (page_shift - PAGE_SHIFT)) { - int err; - - err = vmap_range_noflush(addr, addr + (1UL << page_shift), + page_shift == PAGE_SHIFT) { + err = vmap_small_pages_range_noflush(addr, end, prot, pages); + } else { + for (i = 0; i < nr; i += 1U << (page_shift - PAGE_SHIFT)) { + err = vmap_range_noflush(addr, addr + (1UL << page_shift), page_to_phys(pages[i]), prot, page_shift); - if (err) - return err; + if (err) + break; - addr += 1UL << page_shift; + addr += 1UL << page_shift; + } } - return 0; + /* Undo the PTEs installed before the failure. */ + if (err) + __vunmap_range_noflush(start, end);Would it be too complicated to track how much was actually mapped and unmap only that portion?I think it is possible to vunmap the range which is already unmapped. i.e. in this case it is better to no to track anything as soon as a mapping failure is a corner case. Also it is more reliable without extra track logic.
Thank you both. I take note of Suren's concerns. The worst case is a single PMD where only the first page was installed, __vunmap_range_noflush() then loops 512 times to undo one PTE, plus 511 empty ones. And tracking the exact progress would require vmap_pages_p4d/pud/pmd_range() to report how far they got. That also puts counting instructions on the successful mapping path, while the saving only pays off on the failure one. So I agree with Ulad. Thanks Best Regards Hao
-- Uladzislau Rezki