folio_set_order(folio, 0) is used in kernel at two places
__destroy_compound_gigantic_folio and __prep_compound_gigantic_folio.
Currently, It is called to clear out the folio->_folio_nr_pages and
folio->_folio_order.

For __destroy_compound_gigantic_folio:
In past, folio_set_order(folio, 0) was needed because page->mapping used
to overlap with _folio_nr_pages and _folio_order. So if these fields were
left uncleared during freeing gigantic hugepages, they were causing
"BUG: bad page state" due to non-zero page->mapping. Now, After
Commit a01f4390 ("hugetlb: be sure to free demoted CMA pages to
CMA") page->mapping has explicitly been cleared out for tail pages. Also,
_folio_order and _folio_nr_pages no longer overlaps with page->mapping.

So, folio_set_order(folio, 0) can be removed from freeing gigantic
folio path (__destroy_compound_gigantic_folio).

Another place, folio_set_order(folio, 0) is called inside
__prep_compound_gigantic_folio during error path. Here,
folio_set_order(folio, 0) can also be removed if we move
folio_set_order(folio, order) after for loop.

The patch also moves _folio_set_head call in __prep_compound_gigantic_folio()
such that we avoid clearing them in the error path.

Also, as Mike pointed out:
"It would actually be better to move the calls _folio_set_head and
folio_set_order in __prep_compound_gigantic_folio() as suggested here. Why?
In the current code, the ref count on the 'head page' is still 1 (or more)
while those calls are made. So, someone could take a speculative ref on the
page BEFORE the tail pages are set up."

This way, folio_set_order(folio, 0) is no more needed. And it will also
helps removing the confusion of folio order being set to 0 (as _folio_order
field is part of first tail page).

Testing: I have run LTP tests, which all passes. and also I have written
the test in LTP which tests the bug caused by compound_nr and page->mapping
overlapping.

https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap32.c

Running on older kernel ( < 5.10-rc7) with the above bug this fails while
on newer kernel and, also with this patch it passes.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230609162907.111756-1-tsahu@linux.ibm.comSigned-off-by: Tarun Sahu <tsahu@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>