[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190516142119.GD43059@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 15:21:19 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: Bad virt_to_phys since commit 54c7a8916a887f35
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 05:13:14PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:41:06PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:38:20PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Since commit:
> > >
> > > 54c7a8916a887f35 ("initramfs: free initrd memory if opening /initrd.image fails")
> >
> > Ugh, I dropped a paragarph here.
> >
> > Since that commit, I'm seeing a boot-time splat on arm64 when using
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL. I'm running an arm64 syzkaller instance, and this
> > kills the VM, preventing further testing, which is unfortunate.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > > IIUC prior to that commit, we'd only attempt to free an intird if we had
> > > one, whereas now we do so unconditionally. AFAICT, in this case
> > > initrd_start has not been initialized (I'm not using an initrd or
> > > initramfs on my system), so we end up trying virt_to_phys() on a bogus
> > > VA in free_initrd_mem().
> > >
> > > Any ideas on the right way to fix this?
>
> If I remember correctly, initrd_start would be 0 unless explicitly set by
> the arch setup code, so something like this could work:
>
> diff --git a/init/initramfs.c b/init/initramfs.c
> index 435a428c2af1..05fe60437796 100644
> --- a/init/initramfs.c
> +++ b/init/initramfs.c
> @@ -529,6 +529,9 @@ extern unsigned long __initramfs_size;
>
> void __weak free_initrd_mem(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> {
> + if (!start)
> + return;
> +
> free_reserved_area((void *)start, (void *)end, POISON_FREE_INITMEM,
> "initrd");
> }
I think this should work, given Steven's patch checks the same thing.
I don't have a preference as to which patch should be taken, so I'll
leave that to Christoph.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists