Re: [PATCH] s390/mm: Fix fail path in crst_table_upgrade()

Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On a 4-to-5 level upgrade (unlike 3-to-5) p4d local variable
> stays NULL. If the pgd allocation then fails, the fault code
> path calls pagetable_dtor(virt_to_ptdesc(p4d)) with NULL.
> 
> Fixes: 502269ab98b5 ("s390/mm: add missing ctor/dtor on page table upgrade")
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <[email protected]>
> ---
>  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c b/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
> index 9610770fcf6d..87a8bdb3e51e 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c
> @@ -69,14 +69,19 @@ int crst_table_upgrade(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long end)
>  	if (asce_limit == _REGION2_SIZE) {
>  		p4d = crst_table_alloc(mm);
>  		if (unlikely(!p4d))
> -			goto err_p4d;
> +			return -ENOMEM;
>  		crst_table_init(p4d, _REGION2_ENTRY_EMPTY);
>  		pagetable_p4d_ctor(virt_to_ptdesc(p4d));
>  	}
>  	if (end > _REGION1_SIZE) {
>  		pgd = crst_table_alloc(mm);
> -		if (unlikely(!pgd))
> -			goto err_pgd;
> +		if (unlikely(!pgd)) {
> +			if (p4d) {
> +				pagetable_dtor(virt_to_ptdesc(p4d));
> +				crst_table_free(mm, p4d);
> +			}
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +		}
>  		crst_table_init(pgd, _REGION1_ENTRY_EMPTY);
>  		pagetable_pgd_ctor(virt_to_ptdesc(pgd));
>  	}
> @@ -106,12 +111,6 @@ int crst_table_upgrade(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long end)
>  	on_each_cpu(__crst_table_upgrade, mm, 0);
>  
>  	return 0;
> -
> -err_pgd:
> -	pagetable_dtor(virt_to_ptdesc(p4d));
> -	crst_table_free(mm, p4d);
> -err_p4d:
> -	return -ENOMEM;
>  }

Imho this makes the code even more uglier than it is/was. This is also yet
another bug which is/was only possible after loop unrolling happened with
[1]. Another bug, which would not have been possible without the rework back
then, is [2].

So I would _much_ rather prefer to go back to what we had with [1], of course
including the additional dtor/ctor code. But that code was much more readable
compared to what we have now, especially considering the additional fix which
is proposed now.

[1] 31932757c612 ("s390/mm: optimize page table upgrade routine")
[2] b5efb63acf7b ("s390/mm: Add NULL pointer check to crst_table_free() base_crst_free()")
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.