Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: mm: Fix rodata=full block mapping support for realm guests

From: Catalin Marinas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 21:43:59 +0100

On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 05:17:02PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>  int split_kernel_leaf_mapping(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * !BBML2_NOABORT systems should not be trying to change permissions on
> -	 * anything that is not pte-mapped in the first place. Just return early
> -	 * and let the permission change code raise a warning if not already
> -	 * pte-mapped.
> -	 */
> -	if (!system_supports_bbml2_noabort())
> -		return 0;
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * If the region is within a pte-mapped area, there is no need to try to
>  	 * split. Additionally, CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and CONFIG_KFENCE may
>  	 * change permissions from atomic context so for those cases (which are
>  	 * always pte-mapped), we must not go any further because taking the
> -	 * mutex below may sleep.
> +	 * mutex below may sleep. Do not call force_pte_mapping() here because
> +	 * it could return a confusing result if called from a secondary cpu
> +	 * prior to finalizing caps. Instead, linear_map_requires_bbml2 gives us
> +	 * what we need.
>  	 */
> -	if (force_pte_mapping() || is_kfence_address((void *)start))
> +	if (!linear_map_requires_bbml2 || is_kfence_address((void *)start))
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	if (!system_supports_bbml2_noabort()) {
> +		/*
> +		 * !BBML2_NOABORT systems should not be trying to change
> +		 * permissions on anything that is not pte-mapped in the first
> +		 * place. Just return early and let the permission change code
> +		 * raise a warning if not already pte-mapped.
> +		 */
> +		if (system_capabilities_finalized())
> +			return 0;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Boot-time: split_kernel_leaf_mapping_locked() allocates from
> +		 * page allocator. Can't split until it's available.
> +		 */
> +		if (WARN_ON(!page_alloc_available))
> +			return -EBUSY;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Boot-time: Started secondary cpus but don't know if they
> +		 * support BBML2_NOABORT yet. Can't allow splitting in this
> +		 * window in case they don't.
> +		 */
> +		if (WARN_ON(num_online_cpus() > 1))
> +			return -EBUSY;
> +	}

I think sashiko is over cautions here
(https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email-masked])
but it has a somewhat valid point from the perspective of
num_online_cpus() semantics. We have have num_online_cpus() == 1 while
having a secondary CPU just booted and with its MMU enabled. I don't
think we can have any asynchronous tasks running at that point to
trigger a spit though. Even async_init() is called after smp_init().

An option may be to attempt cpus_read_trylock() as this lock is taken by
_cpu_up(). If it fails, return -EBUSY, otherwise check num_online_cpus()
and unlock (and return -EBUSY if secondaries already started).

Another thing I couldn't get my head around - IIUC is_realm_world()
won't return true for map_mem() yet (if in a realm). Can we have realms
on hardware that does not support BBML2_NOABORT? We may not have
configuration with rodata_full set (it should be complementary to realm
support).

I'll add the patches to for-next/core to give them a bit of time in
-next but let's see next week if we ignore this (with an updated
comment) or we try to avoid the issue altogether.

-- 
Catalin