On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:02 PM 刘海龙(LaoLiu) <liuhailong@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2024/2/28 17:34, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:51 PM 刘海龙(LaoLiu) <liuhailong@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> If vm_map_ram(page, 0, 0) would cause panic by vmap_pages_range_noflush, so
> >> change IS_ERR to IS_ERR_OR_NULL to fix this.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hailong.Liu <liuhailong@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> index d12a17fc0c17..109732006cf7 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> @@ -2387,7 +2387,7 @@ void *vm_map_ram(struct page **pages, unsigned int
> >> count, int node)
> >>
> >> if (likely(count <= VMAP_MAX_ALLOC)) {
> >> mem = vb_alloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> - if (IS_ERR(mem))
> >> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mem))
> >
> > it seems the only case for vb_alloc to return NULL is size = 0, isn't
> > it a bug of
> > caller?
> vb_alloc had already checked the size == 0, so it should be return NULL
> to caller or not panic here.
>
> In fact, we encounter z_erofs_lz4_decompress issue.
>
> [54032.383633][T25392] vmap_pages_range_noflush+0x790/0x8f8
> [54032.383637][T25392] vm_map_ram+0x1c8/0x10b0
> [54032.383642][T25392] z_erofs_lz4_decompress+0x60/0x1e8
> [54032.383648][T25392] z_erofs_decompress_pcluster+0x624/0x9fc
> [54032.383653][T25392] z_erofs_decompress_kickoff+0x18c/0x224
> [54032.383658][T25392] z_erofs_decompressqueue_endio+0x1a8/0x1e0
> [54032.383663][T25392] bio_endio+0x188/0x47c
> [54032.383667][T25392] clone_endio+0x1a0/0x550
> [54032.383674][T25392] bio_endio+0x14c/0x47c
> [54032.383678][T25392] verity_work.60258+0x7c/0x13c
> [54032.383682][T25392] process_one_work+0x1b8/0xa98
> [54032.383687][T25392] worker_thread+0x160/0x6c0
> [54032.383691][T25392] kthread+0x15c/0x1d0
> [54032.383696][T25392] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>
> z_erofs_lz4_decompress has checked the return value, so it's reasonable
> to return NULL if size == 0.
I agree. but there is no reason to activate a WARN_ON in vb_alloc as
obviously it doesn't like it. so fix it earlier.
I even feel z_erofs_lz4_decompress is a better place than vm_map_ram
according to your description. but at least vm_map_ram is better than
checking a vb_alloc's ret after it gives a parameter obviously hated and
causes complaints.
>
> Brs,
> Hailong.
> >
> >> return NULL;
> >> addr = (unsigned long)mem;
> >> } else {
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >
Thanks
Barry
