Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] arm64: mm: Permit permissions changes on huge vmappings
Adrian Barnaś <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kvack.linux-mm,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-modules,org.kernel.vger.linux-trace-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Ard On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 03:53:27PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >From: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> > >Allow permission changes on huge vmappings in cases where no splitting >is needed (i.e., the region is aligned sufficiently), or when the system >has support for splitting live mappings. > >Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> >--- > arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c >index bbe98ac9ad8c..20ff9cb273c1 100644 >--- a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c >+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c >@@ -169,8 +169,6 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr, int numpages, > * we are operating on does not result in such splitting. > * > * Let's restrict ourselves to mappings created by vmalloc (or vmap). >- * Disallow VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP mappings to guarantee that only page >- * mappings are updated and splitting is never needed. > * > * So check whether the [addr, addr + size) interval is entirely > * covered by precisely one VM area that has the VM_ALLOC flag set. >@@ -179,7 +177,16 @@ static int change_memory_common(unsigned long addr, int numpages, > if (!area || > ((unsigned long)kasan_reset_tag((void *)end) > > (unsigned long)kasan_reset_tag(area->addr) + area->size) || >- ((area->flags & (VM_ALLOC | VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP)) != VM_ALLOC)) >+ !(area->flags & VM_ALLOC)) >+ return -EINVAL; >+ >+ /* >+ * Disallow VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP mappings unless the region is PMD >+ * aligned, or splitting live huge mappings is supported. >+ */ >+ if ((area->flags & VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP) && >+ ((start % PMD_SIZE) || (size % PMD_SIZE)) && If I understand the intention here correctly, I don't think it is valid. Even if it is PMD-sized and PMD-aligned, it would still cause a split because the loop below is not using page order, but performs attribute changes page by page. Best regards, Adrian