The TLB supports scaled sizes, as many modern TLBs do, but is unusual in that the smallest size is one line rather than 4KB. However, one-line pages exist to permit on-th-fly allocation of backing DRAM when a dirty line is evicted from the last-level cache. The one-line pages are scavenged by a system process and consolidated into more conventionally-sized pages. If scavenging were not done then the number of one-line entries would grow to the point that the underlying page tables would occupy most of physical memory, which is rather pointless.
There’s another difference between the PLB and the TLB structure: while the granularity of pages in the TLB varies, it is always a multiple of lines, whereas the PLB has byte granularity. Consequently you can protect a single byte (which is actually done, for example to protect an MMIO register for a device), but you can’t page one to disk.
Moving on to your suggestion to use the TLB for checking for use-after-free. A crawling allocation only works if it has a crawling free, or you wind up with internal fragmentation and, again, a lot of tracking entries and poor performance. If you do have a crawling free, for example if you are using a copying garbage collector, then it becomes possible to protect the freed region. However, the TLB is probably not the right place to do it. That’s because on the Mill there is not necessarily any memory backing the address space – at all. Backless memory lets data have an existence only in cache, and is a significant performance win for transient data. The problem is that the hardware does not know that the software considered the data to be free, so if it is dirty (which it necessarily will be), it will eventually age out of cache, be evicted, and have physical DRAM allocated for it, all pointlessly.
The hardware handles the case of transient data in the stack, because allocated frames are automatically freed on return, and the whole call/return protocol is built into the hardware so the hardware knows to discard the lines covering the exited frame. For random memory it doesn’t know about free unless the software tells it.
The good news is that the software is able to tell it. There are several cache management operations in the Mill that let software convey useful information to the cache. One of those operations tells it that an address range is dead, and lines covering that range can be discarded, nominally dirty or not. However, these ops do not recover allocated backing DRAM if it exists, because tracking DRAM is too complex for hardware and the OS must get involved.
And here’s where the TLB gets back in the act. Once the crawling free has freed a whole page, and discarded the lines in cache, it is possible to remap the page in the TLB from physical memory to an error trap. There’s your use-after-free case. However, I don’t think that it is quite what you were hoping for, because it doesn’t protect free spaces in fragmented memory, and it only protects a page granularity. Hence there’s a window of vulnerability while waiting for a partially free page to become wholly free.
I’m not sure I have answered your question in this; feel free to expand or refine it here.