From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9E6C433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:30:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459D664EE4 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:30:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 459D664EE4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BBBA26B0005; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B6B4E6B0006; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:30:55 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A0CB66B0007; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:30:55 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0135.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.135]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8536C6B0005 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447228249980 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:30:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77880765270.29.80F7273 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42246DA for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:30:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C52331B; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 19:30:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.130] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C3EF3F73B; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 19:30:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory To: Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas Cc: David Hildenbrand , Mark Rutland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , linux-mm@kvack.org, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , James Morse , Dan Williams , Robin Murphy , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20210202123524.GB16868@willie-the-truck> <20210202125152.GC16868@willie-the-truck> <4d8f5156-8628-5531-1485-322ad92aa15c@redhat.com> <0e649f28-4d54-319d-f876-8a93870cda7f@arm.com> <20210205185552.GA23216@willie-the-truck> <20210211115354.GB29894@willie-the-truck> <23e5eb93-a39c-c68e-eac1-c5ccf9036079@arm.com> <20210303190428.GB24035@arm.com> <20210303212406.GB20055@willie-the-truck> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:01:22 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210303212406.GB20055@willie-the-truck> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 42246DA X-Stat-Signature: zzorcz7mc47fa8nouxrsq9pj34drir83 Received-SPF: none (arm.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf12; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=foss.arm.com; client-ip=217.140.110.172 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1614828653-71900 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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 ?