linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v4] mm/hotplug: silence a lockdep splat with printk()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <9E07384A-0C7F-4462-852F-B5A386AC10EB@lca.pw>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:42:32 -0500
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        pmladek@...e.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4] mm/hotplug: silence a lockdep splat with
 printk()



> On Jan 17, 2020, at 2:15 PM, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 17.01.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Qian Cai <cai@....pw>:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 17, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri 17-01-20 10:05:12, Qian Cai wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 17, 2020, at 9:39 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks a lot. Having it in a separate patch would be great.
>>>> 
>>>> I was thinking about removing that WARN together in this v5 patch,
>>>> so there is less churn to touch the same function again. However, I
>>>> am fine either way, so just shout out if you feel strongly towards a
>>>> separate patch.
>>> 
>>> I hope you meant moving rather than removing ;). The warning is useful
>>> because we shouldn't see unmovable pages in the movable zone. And a
>>> separate patch makes more sense because the justification is slightly
>>> different. We do not want to have a way for userspace to trigger the
>>> warning from userspace - even though it shouldn't be possible, but
>>> still. Only the offlining path should complain.
>> 
>> Something like this?
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 621716a25639..32c854851e1f 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -8307,7 +8307,6 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>       }
>>       return NULL;
>> unmovable:
>> -       WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
>>       return pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
>> }
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
>> index e70586523ca3..08571b515d9f 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
>> @@ -54,9 +54,11 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
>> 
>> out:
>>       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
>> +
>>       if (!ret)
>>               drain_all_pages(zone);
>>       else if ((isol_flags & REPORT_FAILURE) && unmovable)
> 
> We have a dedicated flag for the offlining part.

This should do the trick then,

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 621716a25639..4bb3e503cb9e 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -8231,7 +8231,7 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
                if (is_migrate_cma(migratetype))
                        return NULL;
 
-               goto unmovable;
+               return page;
        }
 
        for (; iter < pageblock_nr_pages; iter++) {
@@ -8241,7 +8241,7 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
                page = pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
 
                if (PageReserved(page))
-                       goto unmovable;
+                       return page;
 
                /*
                 * If the zone is movable and we have ruled out all reserved
@@ -8303,12 +8303,9 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
                 * is set to both of a memory hole page and a _used_ kernel
                 * page at boot.
                 */
-               goto unmovable;
+               return pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
        }
        return NULL;
-unmovable:
-       WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
-       return pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC
diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
index e70586523ca3..e140eaa901b2 100644
--- a/mm/page_isolation.c
+++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
@@ -54,14 +54,20 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
 
 out:
        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
-       if (!ret)
+
+       if (!ret) {
                drain_all_pages(zone);
-       else if ((isol_flags & REPORT_FAILURE) && unmovable)
-               /*
-                * printk() with zone->lock held will guarantee to trigger a
-                * lockdep splat, so defer it here.
-                */
-               dump_page(unmovable, "unmovable page");
+       } else {
+               if (isol_flags & MEMORY_OFFLINE)
+                       WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
+
+               if ((isol_flags & REPORT_FAILURE) && unmovable)
+                       /*
+                        * printk() with zone->lock held will likely trigger a
+                        * lockdep splat, so defer it here.
+                        */
+                       dump_page(unmovable, "unmovable page");
+       }
 
        return ret;
 }

> 
>> +               WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
>>               /*
>>                * printk() with zone->lock held will guarantee to trigger a
>>                * lockdep splat, so defer it here.
>> 
> 
> So, are we fine with unmovable data ending up in ZONE_MOVABLE as long as we can offline it? 
> 
> This might make my life in virtio-mem a little easier (I can unplug chunks falling into ZONE_MOVABLE).