Re: [PATCH] block: Initialize cfqq->ioprio_class in cfq_get_queue()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2017-01-23 17:06 GMT+03:00 Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> KMSAN (KernelMemorySanitizer, a new error detection tool) reports use of
>> uninitialized memory in cfq_init_cfqq():
>>
>> ==================================================================
>> BUG: KMSAN: use of unitialized memory
>> ...
>> Call Trace:
>>  [<     inline     >] __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15
>>  [<ffffffff8202ac97>] dump_stack+0x157/0x1d0 lib/dump_stack.c:51
>>  [<ffffffff813e9b65>] kmsan_report+0x205/0x360 ??:?
>>  [<ffffffff813eabbb>] __msan_warning+0x5b/0xb0 ??:?
>>  [<     inline     >] cfq_init_cfqq block/cfq-iosched.c:3754
>>  [<ffffffff8201e110>] cfq_get_queue+0xc80/0x14d0 block/cfq-iosched.c:3857
>> ...
>> origin:
>>  [<ffffffff8103ab37>] save_stack_trace+0x27/0x50 arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:67
>>  [<ffffffff813e836b>] kmsan_internal_poison_shadow+0xab/0x150 ??:?
>>  [<ffffffff813e88ab>] kmsan_poison_slab+0xbb/0x120 ??:?
>>  [<     inline     >] allocate_slab mm/slub.c:1627
>>  [<ffffffff813e533f>] new_slab+0x3af/0x4b0 mm/slub.c:1641
>>  [<     inline     >] new_slab_objects mm/slub.c:2407
>>  [<ffffffff813e0ef3>] ___slab_alloc+0x323/0x4a0 mm/slub.c:2564
>>  [<     inline     >] __slab_alloc mm/slub.c:2606
>>  [<     inline     >] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:2669
>>  [<ffffffff813dfb42>] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1d2/0x1f0 mm/slub.c:2746
>>  [<ffffffff8201d90d>] cfq_get_queue+0x47d/0x14d0 block/cfq-iosched.c:3850
>> ...
>> ==================================================================
>> (the line numbers are relative to 4.8-rc6, but the bug persists
>> upstream)
>>
>> The uninitialized struct cfq_queue is created by kmem_cache_alloc_node()
>> and then passed to cfq_init_cfqq(), which accesses cfqq->ioprio_class
>> before it's initialized.
>>
>
> struct cfq_queue is zero initialized (__GFP_ZERO).
> The warning is false-positive.
You are totally right. I've handled __GFP_ZERO in (hopefully) every
case except for this one, and overlooked the presence of that flag in
the kmem_cache_alloc_node().
Thanks for double-checking!
Jens, sorry for the false alarm.


-- 
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München

Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux