On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 23:08, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Haibo Li reported:
> >
> > | Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> > | ffffff802a0d8d7171
> > | Mem abort info:o:
> > | ESR = 0x9600002121
> > | EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bitsts
> > | SET = 0, FnV = 0 0
> > | EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 0
> > | FSC = 0x21: alignment fault
> > | Data abort info:o:
> > | ISV = 0, ISS = 0x0000002121
> > | CM = 0, WnR = 0 0
> > | swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 39-bit VAs, pgdp=000000002835200000
> > | [ffffff802a0d8d71] pgd=180000005fbf9003, p4d=180000005fbf9003,
> > | pud=180000005fbf9003, pmd=180000005fbe8003, pte=006800002a0d8707
> > | Internal error: Oops: 96000021 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> > | Modules linked in:
> > | CPU: 2 PID: 45 Comm: kworker/u8:2 Not tainted
> > | 5.15.78-android13-8-g63561175bbda-dirty #1
> > | ...
> > | pc : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc
> > | lr : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x88/0x6bc
> > | sp : ffffffc00ab4b7f0
> > | x29: ffffffc00ab4b800 x28: ffffff80294fe588 x27: 0000000000000001
> > | x26: 0000000000000019 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffff80294fdb80
> > | x23: 0000000000000000 x22: ffffffc00a70fb68 x21: ffffff802a0d8d71
> > | x20: 0000000000000002 x19: 0000000000000000 x18: ffffffc00a9bd060
> > | x17: 0000000000000001 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: ffffffc00a59f000
> > | x14: 0000000000000001 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: ffffffc00a70faa0
> > | x11: 00000000aaaaaaab x10: 0000000000000054 x9 : ffffffc00839adf8
> > | x8 : ffffffc009b4cf00 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000007
> > | x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : ffffffc00a70fb70
> > | x2 : 0005ff802a0d8d71 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000
> > | Call trace:
> > | kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc
> > | __tsan_read2+0x1f0/0x234
> > | inflate_fast+0x498/0x750
> > | zlib_inflate+0x1304/0x2384
> > | __gunzip+0x3a0/0x45c
> > | gunzip+0x20/0x30
> > | unpack_to_rootfs+0x2a8/0x3fc
> > | do_populate_rootfs+0xe8/0x11c
> > | async_run_entry_fn+0x58/0x1bc
> > | process_one_work+0x3ec/0x738
> > | worker_thread+0x4c4/0x838
> > | kthread+0x20c/0x258
> > | ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> > | Code: b8bfc2a8 2a0803f7 14000007 d503249f (78bfc2a8) )
> > | ---[ end trace 613a943cb0a572b6 ]-----
> >
> > The reason for this is that on certain arm64 configuration since
> > e35123d83ee3 ("arm64: lto: Strengthen READ_ONCE() to acquire when
> > CONFIG_LTO=y"), READ_ONCE() may be promoted to a full atomic acquire
> > instruction which cannot be used on unaligned addresses.
> >
> > Fix it by avoiding READ_ONCE() in read_instrumented_memory(), and simply
> > forcing the compiler to do the required access by casting to the
> > appropriate volatile type. In terms of generated code this currently
> > only affects architectures that do not use the default READ_ONCE()
> > implementation.
> >
> > The only downside is that we are not guaranteed atomicity of the access
> > itself, although on most architectures a plain load up to machine word
> > size should still be atomic (a fact the default READ_ONCE() still relies
> > on itself).
> >
> > Reported-by: Haibo Li <haibo.li@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Haibo Li <haibo.li@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.17+
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Queued, thank you!
>
> This one looks like it might want to go into v6.4 rather than later.
Yes, I think that'd be appropriate - thank you!
Thanks,
-- Marco
