Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: ptdump: Make note_page_flush() range aware
Wei-Lin Chang <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.kvmarm,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <nuba4no4mrqwswozt6sesavtzqupg3z5z5icjs5a22etbwnb35@cdqbdvbg2w4a> |
On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 12:28:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 23:24:57 +0100, > Wei-Lin Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > note_page_flush() calls note_page() with addr == 0 and level == -1 to > > dump the last row of a ptdump. addr == 0 (1 << 64 wrapped around) > > renders a huge region with enormous size for address spaces with > > IA bits < 64. For example the stage-2 page tables and the EFI runtime > > page table. > > > > More importantly, the last region of the address space and everything > > after the address space up to 1 << 64 are merged into one row of > > output. If the last region within the address space is valid, it will > > appear to remain valid up to 1 << 64 with the same attributes. > > > > Currently only the EFI runtime ptdump is affected by this, but KVM will > > soon fix its stage-2 ptdump by using note_page_flush(). Here is an > > example of an EFI runtime ptdump (last row): > > > > 0x0000008000000000-0x0000000000000000 17179868672G PGD > > > > With this patch: > > > > 0x0000008000000000-0x0001000000000000 261632G PGD > > > > To fix this, cache the end address of a ptdump in ptdump_pg_state so > > note_page_flush() can call the final note_page() with the correct end > > address. > > > > Fixes: 9d80448ac92b ("efi/arm64: Add debugfs node to dump UEFI runtime page tables") > > Signed-off-by: Wei-Lin Chang <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/ptdump.h | 2 ++ > > arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptdump.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptdump.h > > index 5b374a6ab34a..1b743de7d89e 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptdump.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptdump.h > > @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ struct ptdump_pg_state { > > const struct addr_marker *marker; > > const struct mm_struct *mm; > > unsigned long start_address; > > + /* exclusive end, ULONG_MAX represents an end at 1 << 64 */ > > + unsigned long end_address; > > int level; > > ptval_t current_prot; > > bool check_wx; > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c b/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c > > index 1c20144700d7..eab400e744d9 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c > > @@ -278,9 +278,19 @@ void note_page_pgd(struct ptdump_state *pt_st, unsigned long addr, pgd_t pgd) > > > > void note_page_flush(struct ptdump_state *pt_st) > > { > > + struct ptdump_pg_state *st = container_of(pt_st, struct ptdump_pg_state, ptdump); > > + unsigned long end = st->end_address; > > pte_t pte_zero = {0}; > > > > - note_page(pt_st, 0, -1, pte_val(pte_zero)); > > + /* > > + * Address spaces that end at 1 << 64 have end_address == ULONG_MAX, > > + * but note_page() expects the exclusive end. In this case adjust end > > + * to the wraparound value 0. > > + */ > > + if (end == ULONG_MAX) > > + end = 0; > > + > > + note_page(pt_st, end, -1, pte_val(pte_zero)); > > } > > > > static void arm64_ptdump_walk_pgd(struct ptdump_state *st, struct mm_struct *mm) > > @@ -303,6 +313,7 @@ void ptdump_walk(struct seq_file *s, struct ptdump_info *info) > > .marker = info->markers, > > .mm = info->mm, > > .pg_level = &kernel_pg_levels[0], > > + .end_address = end, > > .level = -1, > > .ptdump = { > > .note_page_pte = note_page_pte, > > @@ -344,6 +355,7 @@ bool ptdump_check_wx(void) > > { -1, NULL}, > > }, > > .pg_level = &kernel_pg_levels[0], > > + .end_address = ~0UL, > > nit: shouldn't this be ULONG_MAX instead? Yes, this is the same thing, > but it doesn't hurt to match the documentation. I wrote ~0UL because the range[] initialization was using ~0UL so I did the same for consistency. I think changing them both to ULONG_MAX is the better approach. I'll do that if a v4 is required. Thanks, Wei-Lin Chang > > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.