Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/26/2023 5:23 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 8/25/2023 11:28 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/25/23 3:32 AM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>>>> I'm chasing a workqueue hang on RISC-V/qemu (TCG), using the bpf
>>>>> selftests on bpf-next 9e3b47abeb8f.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm able to reproduce the hang by multiple runs of:
>>>>> | ./test_progs -a link_api -a linked_list
>>>>> I'm currently investigating that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But! Sometimes (every blue moon) I get a warn_on_once hit:
>>>>> | ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>> | WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 261 at kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:342
>>>>> bpf_mem_refill+0x1fc/0x206
>>>>> | Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE)
>>>>> | CPU: 3 PID: 261 Comm: test_progs-cpuv Tainted: G OE
>>>>> N 6.5.0-rc5-01743-gdcb152bb8328 #2
>>>>> | Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)
>>>>> | epc : bpf_mem_refill+0x1fc/0x206
>>>>> | ra : irq_work_single+0x68/0x70
>>>>> | epc : ffffffff801b1bc4 ra : ffffffff8015fe84 sp : ff2000000001be20
>>>>> | gp : ffffffff82d26138 tp : ff6000008477a800 t0 : 0000000000046600
>>>>> | t1 : ffffffff812b6ddc t2 : 0000000000000000 s0 : ff2000000001be70
>>>>> | s1 : ff5ffffffffe8998 a0 : ff5ffffffffe8998 a1 : ff600003fef4b000
>>>>> | a2 : 000000000000003f a3 : ffffffff80008250 a4 : 0000000000000060
>>>>> | a5 : 0000000000000080 a6 : 0000000000000000 a7 : 0000000000735049
>>>>> | s2 : ff5ffffffffe8998 s3 : 0000000000000022 s4 : 0000000000001000
>>>>> | s5 : 0000000000000007 s6 : ff5ffffffffe8570 s7 : ffffffff82d6bd30
>>>>> | s8 : 000000000000003f s9 : ffffffff82d2c5e8 s10: 000000000000ffff
>>>>> | s11: ffffffff82d2c5d8 t3 : ffffffff81ea8f28 t4 : 0000000000000000
>>>>> | t5 : ff6000008fd28278 t6 : 0000000000040000
>>>>> | status: 0000000200000100 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause:
>>>>> 0000000000000003
>>>>> | [<ffffffff801b1bc4>] bpf_mem_refill+0x1fc/0x206
>>>>> | [<ffffffff8015fe84>] irq_work_single+0x68/0x70
>>>>> | [<ffffffff8015feb4>] irq_work_run_list+0x28/0x36
>>>>> | [<ffffffff8015fefa>] irq_work_run+0x38/0x66
>>>>> | [<ffffffff8000828a>] handle_IPI+0x3a/0xb4
>>>>> | [<ffffffff800a5c3a>] handle_percpu_devid_irq+0xa4/0x1f8
>>>>> | [<ffffffff8009fafa>] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x28/0x36
>>>>> | [<ffffffff800ae570>] ipi_mux_process+0xac/0xfa
>>>>> | [<ffffffff8000a8ea>] sbi_ipi_handle+0x2e/0x88
>>>>> | [<ffffffff8009fafa>] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x28/0x36
>>>>> | [<ffffffff807ee70e>] riscv_intc_irq+0x36/0x4e
>>>>> | [<ffffffff812b5d3a>] handle_riscv_irq+0x54/0x86
>>>>> | [<ffffffff812b6904>] do_irq+0x66/0x98
>>>>> | ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>>>>
>>>>> Code:
>>>>> | static void free_bulk(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
>>>>> | {
>>>>> | struct bpf_mem_cache *tgt = c->tgt;
>>>>> | struct llist_node *llnode, *t;
>>>>> | unsigned long flags;
>>>>> | int cnt;
>>>>> |
>>>>> | WARN_ON_ONCE(tgt->unit_size != c->unit_size);
>>>>> | ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not well versed in the memory allocator; Before I dive into it --
>>>>> has anyone else hit it? Ideas on why the warn_on_once is hit?
>>>> Maybe take a look at the patch
>>>> 822fb26bdb55 bpf: Add a hint to allocated objects.
>>>>
>>>> In the above patch, we have
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Remember bpf_mem_cache that allocated this object.
>>>> + * The hint is not accurate.
>>>> + */
>>>> + c->tgt = *(struct bpf_mem_cache **)llnode;
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that the warning may be related to the above.
>>>> I tried the above ./test_progs command line (running multiple
>>>> at the same time) and didn't trigger the issue.
>>> The extra 8-bytes before the freed pointer is used to save the pointer
>>> of the original bpf memory allocator where the freed pointer came from,
>>> so unit_free() could free the pointer back to the original allocator to
>>> prevent alloc-and-free unbalance.
>>>
>>> I suspect that a wrong pointer was passed to bpf_obj_drop, but do not
>>> find anything suspicious after checking linked_list. Another possibility
>>> is that there is write-after-free problem which corrupts the extra
>>> 8-bytes before the freed pointer. Could you please apply the following
>>> debug patch to check whether or not the extra 8-bytes are corrupted ?
>> Thanks for getting back!
>>
>> I took your patch for a run, and there's a hit:
>> | bad cache ff5ffffffffe8570: got size 96 work ffffffff801b19c8, cache ff5ffffffffe8980 exp size 128 work ffffffff801b19c8
>
> The extra 8-bytes are not corrupted. Both of these two bpf_mem_cache are
> valid and there are in the cache array defined in bpf_mem_caches. BPF
> memory allocator allocated the pointer from 96-bytes sized-cache, but it
> tried to free the pointer through 128-bytes sized-cache.
>
> Now I suspect there is no 96-bytes slab in your system and ksize(ptr -
> LLIST_NODE_SZ) returns 128, so bpf memory allocator selected the
> 128-byte sized-cache instead of 96-bytes sized-cache. Could you please
> check the value of KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE in your kernel .config and using the
> following command to check whether there is 96-bytes slab in your system:
KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE is 64.
> $ cat /proc/slabinfo |grep kmalloc-96
> dma-kmalloc-96 0 0 96 42 1 : tunables 0 0
> 0 : slabdata 0 0 0
> kmalloc-96 1865 2268 96 42 1 : tunables 0 0
> 0 : slabdata 54 54 0
>
> In my system, slab has 96-bytes cached, so grep outputs something, but I
> think there will no output in your system.
You're right! No kmalloc-96.
Björn
