On 8/27/23 1:37 AM, Björn Töpel wrote:
Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
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.
To get rid of the warning, limit available sizes from
bpf_mem_alloc_init()?
Do you know why your system does not have kmalloc-96?
Björn
