On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 15:36 +0100, hch@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 03:47:20PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > =============================================================================
> > BUG kmalloc-16 (Not tainted): Redzone overwritten
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint
> > INFO: 0xffff880030bacc78-0xffff880030bacc7f. First byte 0xf instead of 0xcc
> > INFO: Allocated in irq_create_affinity_masks+0x5f/0x260 age=0 cpu=3 pid=812
> > ___slab_alloc.constprop.79+0x482/0x4f0
> > __slab_alloc.isra.75.constprop.78+0x55/0xa0
> > __kmalloc+0x27c/0x310
> > irq_create_affinity_masks+0x5f/0x260
>
> This is the normal affinity mask allocation.
(reduced CC-list again)
Hello Christoph,
It seems like irq_create_affinity_masks() wrote past the bounds of the masks array
it allocated. After I had added the following debug code in irq_create_affinity_masks():
WARN_ON_ONCE(affv <= 0);
pr_err("%s: affd = { .pre = %d, .post = %d }, nvecs = %d\n",
__func__, affd->pre_vectors, affd->post_vectors, nvecs);
The following output appeared:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 814 at kernel/irq/affinity.c:69 irq_create_affinity_masks+0x2cd/0x2f0
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
__warn+0xcb/0xf0
warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x20
irq_create_affinity_masks+0x2cd/0x2f0
__pci_enable_msix+0x314/0x4c0
pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity+0xb7/0x140
qla2x00_request_irqs+0xa6/0x6d0 [qla2xxx]
qla2x00_probe_one+0xc2e/0x25f0 [qla2xxx]
pci_device_probe+0x8a/0xf0
driver_probe_device+0x1f5/0x450
__driver_attach+0xe3/0xf0
bus_for_each_dev+0x66/0xa0
driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
bus_add_driver+0x200/0x270
driver_register+0x60/0xe0
__pci_register_driver+0x5d/0x60
qla2x00_module_init+0x1c9/0x217 [qla2xxx]
do_one_initcall+0x44/0x180
do_init_module+0x5f/0x1f9
load_module+0x2582/0x2a00
SYSC_finit_module+0xbc/0xf0
SyS_finit_module+0xe/0x10
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc6
irq_create_affinity_masks: affd = { .pre = 2, .post = 0 }, nvecs = 2
affd comes from the qla2xxx driver: struct irq_affinity desc = { .pre_vectors =
QLA_BASE_VECTORS }. Shouldn't irq_calc_affinity_vectors() guarantee that it
returns a value that is strictly greater than affd->pre_vectors + affd->post_vectors
instead of greater than or equal to affd->pre_vectors + affd->post_vectors?
Thanks,
Bart.��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
