Hi Alexei,
On 10/31/2023 4:01 PM, Hou Tao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/30/2023 10:11 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
>> hi, Hou Tao,
>>
>> we noticed a WARN_ONCE added in this commit was hit in our tests. FYI.
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> kernel test robot noticed "WARNING:at_kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:#bpf_mem_alloc_init" on:
>>
>> commit: c930472552022bd09aab3cd946ba3f243070d5c7 ("bpf: Ensure unit_size is matched with slab cache object size")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>
>> [test failed on linus/master ffc253263a1375a65fa6c9f62a893e9767fbebfa]
>> [test failed on linux-next/master c503e3eec382ac708ee7adf874add37b77c5d312]
>>
>> in testcase: boot
>>
>> compiler: gcc-12
>> test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 16G
>>
>> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>>
>>
>> +-------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> | | b1d53958b6 | c930472552 |
>> +-------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> | WARNING:at_kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:#bpf_mem_alloc_init | 0 | 14 |
>> | EIP:bpf_mem_alloc_init | 0 | 14 |
>> +-------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>>
>>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202310302113.9f8fe705-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> [ 32.249545][ T1] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [ 32.250152][ T1] bpf_mem_cache[0]: unexpected object size 128, expect 96
>> [ 32.250953][ T1] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1 at kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:500 bpf_mem_alloc_init (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:500 kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:579)
>> [ 32.252065][ T1] Modules linked in:
>> [ 32.252548][ T1] CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W 6.5.0-12679-gc93047255202 #1
>> [ 32.253767][ T1] EIP: bpf_mem_alloc_init (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:500 kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:579)
>> [ 32.254439][ T1] Code: 30 e8 7e 22 04 00 8b 56 20 39 d0 74 24 80 3d 18 c0 cc c2 00 75 3b c6 05 18 c0 cc c2 01 52 50 53 68 df 53 57 c2 e8 47 70 ef ff <0f> 0b 83 c4 10 eb 20 43 83 c6 74 83 fb 0b 0f 85 6a ff ff ff 8b 45
> Thanks for the report. I also could reproduce the warning in v6.6 by
> following the reproducing steps in the link below.
>
> According the reproduce job, it seems that the kernel is built for i386
> (make HOSTCC=gcc-12 CC=gcc-12 ARCH=i386 olddefconfig prepare
> modules_prepare bzImage) and in .config CONFIG_SLAB instead of
> CONFIG_SLUB is enabled, I will check whether or not these two setups
> make any thing being different.
I see what has happened. The problem is twofold:
(1) The object_size of kmalloc-cg-96 is adjust from 96 to 128 due to
slab merge in __kmem_cache_alias(). For SLAB, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN is
enabled by default for kmalloc slab, so align is 64 and size is 128 for
kmalloc-cg-96. So when unit_alloc() does kmalloc_node(96, __GFP_ACCOUNT,
node), ksize() will return 128 instead of 96 for the returned pointer.
SLUB has a similar merge logic, but because its align is 8 under x86-64,
so the warning doesn't happen for i386 + SLUB, but I think the similar
problem may exist for other architectures.
(2) kmalloc_size_roundup() returns the object_size of kmalloc-96 instead
of kmalloc-cg-96, so bpf_mem_cache_adjust_size() doesn't adjust
size_index accordingly. The reason why the object_size of kmalloc-96 is
96 instead of 128 is that there is slab merge for kmalloc-96.
About how to fix the problem, I have two ideas:
The first is to introduce kmalloc_size_roundup_flags(), so
bpf_mem_cache_adjust_size() could use kmalloc_size_roundup_flags(size,
__GFP_ACCOUNT) to get the object_size of kmalloc-cg-xxx. It could fix
the warning for now, but the warning may pop-up occasionally due to SLUB
merge and unusual slab align. The second is just using the bpf_mem_cache
pointer to get the unit_size which is saved before the to-be-free
pointer. Its downside is that it may can not be able to skip the free
operation for pointer which is not allocated from bpf ma, but I think it
is acceptable. I prefer the latter solution. What do you think ?
>
> Regards,
> Tao
>> All code
>> ========
>> 0: 30 e8 xor %ch,%al
>> 2: 7e 22 jle 0x26
>> 4: 04 00 add $0x0,%al
>> 6: 8b 56 20 mov 0x20(%rsi),%edx
>> 9: 39 d0 cmp %edx,%eax
>> b: 74 24 je 0x31
>> d: 80 3d 18 c0 cc c2 00 cmpb $0x0,-0x3d333fe8(%rip) # 0xffffffffc2ccc02c
>> 14: 75 3b jne 0x51
>> 16: c6 05 18 c0 cc c2 01 movb $0x1,-0x3d333fe8(%rip) # 0xffffffffc2ccc035
>> 1d: 52 push %rdx
>> 1e: 50 push %rax
>> 1f: 53 push %rbx
>> 20: 68 df 53 57 c2 push $0xffffffffc25753df
>> 25: e8 47 70 ef ff call 0xffffffffffef7071
>> 2a:* 0f 0b ud2 <-- trapping instruction
>> 2c: 83 c4 10 add $0x10,%esp
>> 2f: eb 20 jmp 0x51
>> 31: 43 83 c6 74 rex.XB add $0x74,%r14d
>> 35: 83 fb 0b cmp $0xb,%ebx
>> 38: 0f 85 6a ff ff ff jne 0xffffffffffffffa8
>> 3e: 8b .byte 0x8b
>> 3f: 45 rex.RB
>>
>> Code starting with the faulting instruction
>> ===========================================
>> 0: 0f 0b ud2
>> 2: 83 c4 10 add $0x10,%esp
>> 5: eb 20 jmp 0x27
>> 7: 43 83 c6 74 rex.XB add $0x74,%r14d
>> b: 83 fb 0b cmp $0xb,%ebx
>> e: 0f 85 6a ff ff ff jne 0xffffffffffffff7e
>> 14: 8b .byte 0x8b
>> 15: 45 rex.RB
>> [ 32.256641][ T1] EAX: 00000037 EBX: 00000000 ECX: 00000002 EDX: 80000002
>> [ 32.257402][ T1] ESI: fefbda30 EDI: da953a30 EBP: c3d49ef0 ESP: c3d49ec0
>> [ 32.258176][ T1] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0000 SS: 0068 EFLAGS: 00010286
>> [ 32.259000][ T1] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00000000 CR3: 02dd5000 CR4: 000406d0
>> [ 32.259768][ T1] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
>> [ 32.260526][ T1] DR6: fffe0ff0 DR7: 00000400
>> [ 32.261021][ T1] Call Trace:
>> [ 32.261376][ T1] ? show_regs (arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c:479 arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c:465)
>> [ 32.261835][ T1] ? bpf_mem_alloc_init (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:500 kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:579)
>> [ 32.262395][ T1] ? __warn (kernel/panic.c:673)
>> [ 32.262840][ T1] ? report_bug (lib/bug.c:201 lib/bug.c:219)
>> [ 32.263327][ T1] ? bpf_mem_alloc_init (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:500 kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:579)
>> [ 32.263884][ T1] ? exc_overflow (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:250)
>> [ 32.264368][ T1] ? handle_bug (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:237)
>> [ 32.264833][ T1] ? exc_invalid_op (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:258 (discriminator 1))
>> [ 32.265333][ T1] ? handle_exception (arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S:1056)
>> [ 32.265903][ T1] ? exc_overflow (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:250)
>> [ 32.266392][ T1] ? bpf_mem_alloc_init (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:500 kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:579)
>> [ 32.266982][ T1] ? exc_overflow (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:250)
>> [ 32.267476][ T1] ? bpf_mem_alloc_init (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:500 kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:579)
>> [ 32.268050][ T1] ? irq_work_init_threads (kernel/bpf/core.c:2919)
>> [ 32.268610][ T1] bpf_global_ma_init (kernel/bpf/core.c:2923)
>> [ 32.269142][ T1] do_one_initcall (init/main.c:1232)
>> [ 32.269657][ T1] ? debug_smp_processor_id (lib/smp_processor_id.c:61)
>> [ 32.270243][ T1] ? rcu_is_watching (include/linux/context_tracking.h:122 kernel/rcu/tree.c:699)
>> [ 32.270770][ T1] do_initcalls (init/main.c:1293 init/main.c:1310)
>> [ 32.271275][ T1] kernel_init_freeable (init/main.c:1549)
>> [ 32.271841][ T1] ? rest_init (init/main.c:1429)
>> [ 32.272324][ T1] kernel_init (init/main.c:1439)
>> [ 32.272785][ T1] ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/process.c:153)
>> [ 32.273272][ T1] ? rest_init (init/main.c:1429)
>> [ 32.273752][ T1] ret_from_fork_asm (arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S:741)
>> [ 32.274272][ T1] entry_INT80_32 (arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S:947)
>> [ 32.274803][ T1] irq event stamp: 16968005
>> [ 32.275293][ T1] hardirqs last enabled at (16968013): console_unlock (arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:26 arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:67 arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:127 kernel/printk/printk.c:347 kernel/printk/printk.c:2720 kernel/printk/printk.c:3039)
>> [ 32.276277][ T1] hardirqs last disabled at (16968022): console_unlock (kernel/printk/printk.c:345 kernel/printk/printk.c:2720 kernel/printk/printk.c:3039)
>> [ 32.277242][ T1] softirqs last enabled at (16967866): __do_softirq (arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:27 kernel/softirq.c:400 kernel/softirq.c:582)
>> [ 32.278202][ T1] softirqs last disabled at (16967861): do_softirq_own_stack (arch/x86/kernel/irq_32.c:57 arch/x86/kernel/irq_32.c:147)
>> [ 32.279228][ T1] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>> [ 32.280294][ T1] kmemleak: Kernel memory leak detector initialized (mem pool available: 15783)
>> [ 32.281276][ T1] debug_vm_pgtable: [debug_vm_pgtable ]: Validating architecture page table helpers
>> [ 32.285847][ T74] kmemleak: Automatic memory scanning thread started
>> [ 32.290289][ T1] UBI error: cannot create "ubi" debugfs directory, error -2
>> [ 32.291558][ T1] UBI error: cannot initialize UBI, error -2
>>
>>
>>
>> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
>> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231030/202310302113.9f8fe705-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
