From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:12:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9872a864-15b1-12a7-6aac-0e68554bc744@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b8dfa24d-e287-0039-ea6d-f644f52f4dbf@arm.com>
On 04.03.21 04:31, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 3/4/21 2:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 07:04:33PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 11.02.21 13:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> ... and dropped. These patches appear to be responsible for a boot
>>>>>> regression reported by CKI:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh, boot regression ? These patches only change the behaviour
>>>>> for non boot memory only.
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/cki.8D1CB60FEC.K6NJMEFQPV@redhat.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Will look into the logs and see if there is something pointing to
>>>>> the problem.
>>>>
>>>> It's strange. One thing I can imagine is a mis-detection of early sections.
>>>> However, I don't see that happening:
>>>>
>>>> In sparse_init_nid(), we:
>>>> 1. Initialize the memmap
>>>> 2. Set SECTION_IS_EARLY | SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP via
>>>> sparse_init_one_section()
>>>>
>>>> Only hotplugged sections (DIMMs, dax/kmem) set SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP without
>>>> SECTION_IS_EARLY - which is correct, because these are not early.
>>>>
>>>> So once we know that we have valid_section() -- SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP is set
>>>> -- early_section() should be correct.
>>>>
>>>> Even if someone would be doing a pfn_valid() after
>>>> memblocks_present()->memory_present() but before
>>>> sparse_init_nid(), we should be fine (!valid_section() -> return 0).
>>>
>>> I couldn't figure out how this could fail with Anshuman's patches.
>>> Will's suspicion is that some invalid/null pointer gets dereferenced
>>> before being initialised but the only case I see is somewhere in
>>> pfn_section_valid() (ms->usage) if valid_section() && !early_section().
>>>
>>> Assuming that we do get a valid_section(ms) && !early_section(ms), is
>>> there a case where ms->usage is not initialised? I guess races with
>>> section_deactivate() are not possible this early.
>>>
>>> Another situation could be that pfn_valid() returns true when no memory
>>> is mapped for that pfn.
>>
>> The case I wondered about was __pfn_to_section() with a bogus pfn, since
>> with patch 2/2 we call that *before* checking that pfn_to_section_nr() is
>> sane.
>
> Right, that is problematic. __pfn_to_section() should not be called without
> first validating pfn_to_section_nr(), as it could cause out-of-bound access
> on mem_section buffer. Will fix that order but as there is no test scenario
> which is definitive for this reported regression, how should we ensure that
> it fixes the problem ?
Oh, right, I missed that in patch #2. (and when comparing to generic
pfn_valid()).
I thought bisecting pointed at patch #1, that's why I didn't even have
another look at patch #2. Makes sense.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-04 8:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-02 4:11 [PATCH V2 0/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory Anshuman Khandual
2021-02-02 4:11 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] " Anshuman Khandual
2021-02-02 12:32 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-02 12:35 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-02 12:39 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-02-02 12:51 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-02 12:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-02-03 3:50 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-02-05 18:55 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-11 11:53 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-11 12:10 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-02-11 12:21 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-11 12:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-03 19:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-03 19:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-03 21:24 ` Will Deacon
2021-03-04 3:31 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-04 8:12 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-03-04 9:36 ` Will Deacon
2021-03-05 4:22 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-02-02 4:11 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] arm64/mm: Reorganize pfn_valid() Anshuman Khandual
2021-02-02 8:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-02-05 18:52 ` [PATCH V2 0/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9872a864-15b1-12a7-6aac-0e68554bc744@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).