On 28 Apr 2022, at 12:19, Qian Cai wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 08:39:06AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>> How about the one attached? I can apply it to next-20220428. Let me know
>> if you are using a different branch. Thanks.
>
> The original endless loop is gone, but running some syscall fuzzer
Thanks for the confirmation.
> afterwards for a while would trigger the warning here. I have yet to
> figure out if this is related to this series.
>
> /*
> * There are several places where we assume that the order value is sane
> * so bail out early if the request is out of bound.
> */
> if (unlikely(order >= MAX_ORDER)) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp & __GFP_NOWARN));
> return NULL;
> }
>
> WARNING: CPU: 26 PID: 172874 at mm/page_alloc.c:5368 __alloc_pages
> CPU: 26 PID: 172874 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 5.18.0-rc4-next-20220428-dirty #67
> pstate: 20400009 (nzCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> tpidr_el2 : ffff28cf80a61000
> pc : __alloc_pages
> lr : alloc_pages
> sp : ffff8000597b70f0
> x29: ffff8000597b70f0 x28: ffff0801e68d34c0 x27: 0000000000000000
> x26: 1ffff0000b2f6ea2 x25: ffff8000597b7510 x24: 0000000000000dc0
> x23: ffff28cf80a61000 x22: 000000000000000e x21: 1ffff0000b2f6e28
> x20: 0000000000040dc0 x19: ffffdf670d4a6fe0 x18: ffffdf66fa017d1c
> x17: ffffdf66f42f8348 x16: 1fffe1003cd1a7b3 x15: 000000000000001a
> x14: 1fffe1003cd1a7a6 x13: 0000000000000004 x12: ffff70000b2f6e05
> x11: 1ffff0000b2f6e04 x10: 00000000f204f1f1 x9 : 000000000000f204
> x8 : dfff800000000000 x7 : 00000000f3000000 x6 : 00000000f3f3f3f3
> x5 : ffff70000b2f6e28 x4 : ffff0801e68d34c0 x3 : 0000000000000000
> x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000001 x0 : 0000000000040dc0
> Call trace:
> __alloc_pages
> alloc_pages
> kmalloc_order
> kmalloc_order_trace
> __kmalloc
> __regset_get
> regset_get_alloc
> fill_thread_core_info
> fill_note_info
> elf_core_dump
> do_coredump
> get_signal
> do_signal
> do_notify_resume
> el0_svc
> el0t_64_sync_handler
> el0t_64_sync
> irq event stamp: 3614
> hardirqs last enabled at (3613): _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> hardirqs last disabled at (3614): el1_dbg
> softirqs last enabled at (2988): fpsimd_preserve_current_state
> softirqs last disabled at (2986): fpsimd_preserve_current_state
I got an email this morning reporting a warning with the same call trace:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CA+G9fYveMF-NU-rvrsbaora2g2QWxrkF7AWViuDrJyN9mNScJg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
The email says the warning appeared from next-20220427, but my
patchset was in linux-next since next-20220426. In addition,
my patches do not touch any function in the call trace. I assume
this warning is not related to my patchset. But let me know
if my patchset is related.
Thanks.
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
