On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:19:22 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Marc Gonzalez reported the following kmemleak crash: > > Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffc021e00000 > Mem abort info: > ESR = 0x96000006 > Exception class = DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits > SET = 0, FnV = 0 > EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 > Data abort info: > ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000006 > CM = 0, WnR = 0 > swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 39-bit VAs, pgdp = (____ptrval____) > [ffffffc021e00000] pgd=000000017e3ba803, pud=000000017e3ba803, > pmd=0000000000000000 > Internal error: Oops: 96000006 [#1] PREEMPT SMP > Modules linked in: > CPU: 6 PID: 523 Comm: kmemleak Tainted: G S W 5.0.0-rc1 #13 > Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. MSM8998 v1 MTP (DT) > pstate: 80000085 (Nzcv daIf -PAN -UAO) > pc : scan_block+0x70/0x190 > lr : scan_block+0x6c/0x190 > sp : ffffff8012e8bd20 > x29: ffffff8012e8bd20 x28: ffffffc0fdbaf018 > x27: ffffffc022000000 x26: 0000000000000080 > x25: ffffff8011aadf70 x24: ffffffc0f8cc8000 > x23: ffffff8010dc8000 x22: ffffff8010dc8830 > x21: ffffffc021e00ff9 x20: ffffffc0f8cc8050 > x19: ffffffc021e00000 x18: 0000000000002409 > x17: 0000000000000200 x16: 0000000000000000 > x15: ffffff8010e14dd8 x14: 0000000000002406 > x13: 000000004c4dd0c6 x12: ffffffc0f77dad58 > x11: 0000000000000001 x10: ffffff8010d9e688 > x9 : ffffff8010d9f000 x8 : ffffff8010d9e688 > x7 : 0000000000000002 x6 : 0000000000000000 > x5 : ffffff8011511c20 x4 : 00000000000026d1 > x3 : ffffff8010e14d88 x2 : 5b36396f4e7d4000 > x1 : 0000000000208040 x0 : 0000000000000000 > Process kmemleak (pid: 523, stack limit = 0x(____ptrval____)) > Call trace: > scan_block+0x70/0x190 > scan_gray_list+0x108/0x1c0 > kmemleak_scan+0x33c/0x7c0 > kmemleak_scan_thread+0x98/0xf0 > kthread+0x11c/0x120 > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x1c > Code: f9000fb4 d503201f 97ffffd2 35000580 (f9400260) > ---[ end trace 176d6ed9d86a0c33 ]--- > note: kmemleak[523] exited with preempt_count 2 > > The crash happens when a no-map area is allocated in > early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch(). The allocated region is > registered with kmemleak, but it is then removed from memblock using > memblock_remove() that is not kmemleak-aware. > > Replacing memblock_phys_alloc_range() with memblock_find_in_range() makes > sure that the allocated memory is not added to kmemleak and then > memblock_remove()'ing this memory is safe. > > As a bonus, since memblock_find_in_range() ensures the allocation in the > specified range, the bounds check can be removed. hm, why is this against -mm rather than against mainline? Do the OF maintainers intend to merge the fix? Thanks.
