On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:04:16AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running latest -next kernel,
> I've stumbled on the following.
>
> It seems that the code in do_huge_pmd_wp_page() was recently modified in
> "thp: do_huge_pmd_wp_page(): handle huge zero page".
>
> Here's the trace:
>
> [ 246.244708] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffff88009c422000
> [ 246.245743] IP: [<ffffffff81a0a795>] copy_page_rep+0x5/0x10
> [ 246.250569] PGD 7232067 PUD 7235067 PMD bfefe067 PTE 800000009c422060
> [ 246.251529] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> [ 246.252325] Dumping ftrace buffer:
> [ 246.252791] (ftrace buffer empty)
> [ 246.252869] Modules linked in:
> [ 246.252869] CPU 3
> [ 246.252869] Pid: 11985, comm: trinity-child12 Tainted: G W 3.9.0-rc4-next-20130328-sasha-00014-g91a3267 #319
> [ 246.252869] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81a0a795>] [<ffffffff81a0a795>] copy_page_rep+0x5/0x10
> [ 246.252869] RSP: 0018:ffff88000015bc40 EFLAGS: 00010286
> [ 246.252869] RAX: ffff88000015bfd8 RBX: 0000000002710880 RCX: 0000000000000200
> [ 246.252869] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff88009c422000 RDI: ffff88009a422000
> [ 246.252869] RBP: ffff88000015bc98 R08: 0000000002718000 R09: 0000000000000001
> [ 246.252869] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff880000000000
> [ 246.252869] R13: ffff88000015bfd8 R14: ffff88000015bfd8 R15: fffffffffff80000
> [ 246.252869] FS: 00007f53db93f700(0000) GS:ffff8800bba00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 246.252869] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 246.252869] CR2: ffff88009c422000 CR3: 0000000000159000 CR4: 00000000000406e0
> [ 246.252869] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 246.252869] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 246.252869] Process trinity-child12 (pid: 11985, threadinfo ffff88000015a000, task ffff88009c60b000)
> [ 246.252869] Stack:
> [ 246.252869] ffffffff81234aae ffff88000015bc88 ffffffff81273639 0000000000a00000
> [ 246.252869] 0000000002718000 ffff8800ab36d050 ffff880000153800 ffffea0002690000
> [ 246.252869] 0000000000a00000 ffff8800ab36d000 ffffea0002710000 ffff88000015bd48
> [ 246.252869] Call Trace:
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff81234aae>] ? copy_user_huge_page+0x1de/0x240
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff81273639>] ? mem_cgroup_charge_common+0xa9/0xc0
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff8126b4d7>] do_huge_pmd_wp_page+0x9f7/0xc60
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff81a0acd9>] ? __const_udelay+0x29/0x30
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff8123364e>] handle_mm_fault+0x26e/0x650
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff8117dc1a>] ? __lock_is_held+0x5a/0x80
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff83db3814>] ? __do_page_fault+0x514/0x5e0
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff83db3870>] __do_page_fault+0x570/0x5e0
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff811c6500>] ? rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x60/0x260
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff811c740e>] ? rcu_eqs_enter_common+0x33e/0x3b0
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff811c679c>] ? rcu_eqs_exit+0x9c/0xb0
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff83db3912>] do_page_fault+0x32/0x50
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff83db2ef0>] do_async_page_fault+0x30/0xc0
> [ 246.252869] [<ffffffff83db01e8>] async_page_fault+0x28/0x30
> [ 246.252869] Code: 90 90 90 90 90 90 9c fa 65 48 3b 06 75 14 65 48 3b 56 08 75 0d 65 48 89 1e 65 48 89 4e 08 9d b0 01 c3 9d 30
> c0 c3 b9 00 02 00 00 <f3> 48 a5 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 eb ee 66 66 66 90 66 66 66 90
> [ 246.252869] RIP [<ffffffff81a0a795>] copy_page_rep+0x5/0x10
> [ 246.252869] RSP <ffff88000015bc40>
> [ 246.252869] CR2: ffff88009c422000
> [ 246.252869] ---[ end trace 09fbe37b108d5766 ]---
>
> And this is the code:
>
> if (is_huge_zero_pmd(orig_pmd))
> clear_huge_page(new_page, haddr, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
> else
> copy_user_huge_page(new_page, page, haddr, vma, HPAGE_PMD_NR); <--- this
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
I don't know this issue was already resolved. If so, my reply become a just
question to Kirill regardless of this BUG.
When I am looking at the code, I was wonder about the logic of GHZP(aka,
get_huge_zero_page) reference handling. The logic depends on that page
allocator never alocate PFN 0.
Who makes sure it? What happens if allocator allocates PFN 0?
I don't know all of architecture makes sure it.
You investigated it for all arches?
If not,
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
shrink_huge_zero_page
huge_zero_refcount = 0;
GHZP
pfn_0_zero_page = alloc_pages
GHZP
pfn_some_zero_page = alloc_page
huge_zero_pfn = 0
huge_zero_pfn = pfn_0
huge_zero_refcount = 2
huge_zero_pfn = pfn_some
huge_zero_refcount = 2
So, if you want to stick this logic, at least, don't we need BUG_ON to check
pfn 0 allocation in get_huge_zero_page?
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>