On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:32 PM Naoya Horiguchi
<naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
>
> The following VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO() is triggered when memory error event
> happens on the (thp/folio) pages which are about to be freed:
>
> [ 1160.232771] page:00000000b36a8a0f refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x1 pfn:0x16a000
> [ 1160.236916] page:00000000b36a8a0f refcount:0 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x1 pfn:0x16a000
> [ 1160.240684] flags: 0x57ffffc0800000(hwpoison|node=1|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1fffff)
> [ 1160.243458] raw: 0057ffffc0800000 dead000000000100 dead000000000122 0000000000000000
> [ 1160.246268] raw: 0000000000000001 0000000000000000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000000
> [ 1160.249197] page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio))
> [ 1160.251815] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 1160.253438] kernel BUG at include/linux/mm.h:788!
> [ 1160.256162] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
> [ 1160.258172] CPU: 2 PID: 115368 Comm: mceinj.sh Tainted: G E 5.18.0-rc1-v5.18-rc1-220404-2353-005-g83111+ #3
> [ 1160.262049] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1.fc35 04/01/2014
> [ 1160.265103] RIP: 0010:dump_page.cold+0x27e/0x2bd
> [ 1160.266757] Code: fe ff ff 48 c7 c6 81 f1 5a 98 e9 4c fe ff ff 48 c7 c6 a1 95 59 98 e9 40 fe ff ff 48 c7 c6 50 bf 5a 98 48 89 ef e8 9d 04 6d ff <0f> 0b 41 f7 c4 ff 0f 00 00 0f 85 9f fd ff ff 49 8b 04 24 a9 00 00
> [ 1160.273180] RSP: 0018:ffffaa2c4d59fd18 EFLAGS: 00010292
> [ 1160.274969] RAX: 000000000000003e RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [ 1160.277263] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffffffff985995a1 RDI: 00000000ffffffff
> [ 1160.279571] RBP: ffffdc9c45a80000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00000000ffffdfff
> [ 1160.281794] R10: ffffaa2c4d59fb08 R11: ffffffff98940d08 R12: ffffdc9c45a80000
> [ 1160.283920] R13: ffffffff985b6f94 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffdc9c45a80000
> [ 1160.286641] FS: 00007eff54ce1740(0000) GS:ffff99c67bd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 1160.289498] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 1160.291106] CR2: 00005628381a5f68 CR3: 0000000104712003 CR4: 0000000000170ee0
> [ 1160.293031] Call Trace:
> [ 1160.293724] <TASK>
> [ 1160.294334] get_hwpoison_page+0x47d/0x570
> [ 1160.295474] memory_failure+0x106/0xaa0
> [ 1160.296474] ? security_capable+0x36/0x50
> [ 1160.297524] hard_offline_page_store+0x43/0x80
> [ 1160.298684] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x11c/0x1b0
> [ 1160.299829] new_sync_write+0xf9/0x160
> [ 1160.300810] vfs_write+0x209/0x290
> [ 1160.301835] ksys_write+0x4f/0xc0
> [ 1160.302718] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> [ 1160.303664] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> [ 1160.304981] RIP: 0033:0x7eff54b018b7
>
> As shown in the RIP address, this VM_BUG_ON in folio_entire_mapcount() is
> called from dump_page("hwpoison: unhandlable page") in get_any_page().
> The below explains the mechanism of the race:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
>
> memory_failure
> get_hwpoison_page
> get_any_page
> dump_page
> compound = PageCompound
> free_pages_prepare
> page->flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP
> folio_entire_mapcount
> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio))
>
> So replace dump_page() with safer one, pr_err().
>
> Fixes: 74e8ee4708a8 ("mm: Turn head_compound_mapcount() into folio_entire_mapcount()")
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> ChangeLog v1 -> v2:
> - v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220414235950.840409-1-naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> - update caller side instead of changing dump_page().
> ---
> mm/memory-failure.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 35e11d6bea4a..0e1453514a2b 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -1270,7 +1270,7 @@ static int get_any_page(struct page *p, unsigned long flags)
> }
> out:
> if (ret == -EIO)
> - dump_page(p, "hwpoison: unhandlable page");
> + pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: unhandlable page.\n", page_to_pfn(p));
I think dump_page() is helpful to tell the users more information
about the unhandlable page, I'm ok with this fix for now, but should
we consider having a memory failure safe dump_page() in the future?
>
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
