linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] mm/sparsemem: pfn_to

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200219115042.e8738272455292d3a6a6e498@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:50:42 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com, osalvador@...e.de,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] mm/sparsemem: pfn_to_page is not valid yet on
 SPARSEMEM

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:04:54 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:

> From: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> When we use SPARSEMEM instead of SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, pfn_to_page()
> doesn't work before sparse_init_one_section() is called. This leads to a
> crash when hotplug memory:
> 
> [   41.839170] BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000000006400000
> [   41.840663] #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode
> [   41.841822] #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page
> [   41.842970] PGD 0 P4D 0
> [   41.843538] Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP PTI
> [   41.844125] CPU: 3 PID: 221 Comm: kworker/u16:1 Tainted: G        W         5.5.0-next-20200205+ #343
> [   41.845659] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
> [   41.846977] Workqueue: kacpi_hotplug acpi_hotplug_work_fn
> [   41.847904] RIP: 0010:__memset+0x24/0x30
> [   41.848660] Code: cc cc cc cc cc cc 0f 1f 44 00 00 49 89 f9 48 89 d1 83 e2 07 48 c1 e9 03 40 0f b6 f6 48 b8 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 48 0f af c6 <f3> 48 ab 89 d1 f3 aa 4c 89 c8 c3 90 49 89 f9 40 88 f0 48 89 d1 f3
> [   41.851836] RSP: 0018:ffffb43ac0373c80 EFLAGS: 00010a87
> [   41.852686] RAX: ffffffffffffffff RBX: ffff8a1518800000 RCX: 0000000000050000
> [   41.853824] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00000000000000ff RDI: 0000000006400000
> [   41.854967] RBP: 0000000000140000 R08: 0000000000100000 R09: 0000000006400000
> [   41.856107] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000002 R12: 0000000000000000
> [   41.857255] R13: 0000000000000028 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff8a153ffd9280
> [   41.858414] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8a153ab00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [   41.859703] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [   41.860627] CR2: 0000000006400000 CR3: 0000000136fca000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> [   41.861716] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [   41.862680] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [   41.863628] Call Trace:
> [   41.863983]  sparse_add_section+0x1c9/0x26a
> [   41.864570]  __add_pages+0xbf/0x150
> [   41.865057]  add_pages+0x12/0x60
> [   41.865489]  add_memory_resource+0xc8/0x210
> [   41.866017]  ? wake_up_q+0xa0/0xa0
> [   41.866416]  __add_memory+0x62/0xb0
> [   41.866825]  acpi_memory_device_add+0x13f/0x300
> [   41.867410]  acpi_bus_attach+0xf6/0x200
> [   41.867890]  acpi_bus_scan+0x43/0x90
> [   41.868448]  acpi_device_hotplug+0x275/0x3d0
> [   41.868972]  acpi_hotplug_work_fn+0x1a/0x30
> [   41.869473]  process_one_work+0x1a7/0x370
> [   41.869953]  worker_thread+0x30/0x380
> [   41.870396]  ? flush_rcu_work+0x30/0x30
> [   41.870846]  kthread+0x112/0x130
> [   41.871236]  ? kthread_create_on_node+0x60/0x60
> [   41.871770]  ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> 
> We should use memmap as it did.
> 
> Fixes: ba72b4c8cf60 ("mm/sparsemem: support sub-section hotplug")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>

This should have included your signed-off-by, as you were on the patch
delivery path.  I have made that change to my copy of the patch - is
that OK?

I also added a cc:stable.  Do we agree this is appropriate?

I added Dan's "On x86 the impact is limited to x86_32 builds, or x86_64
configurations that override the default setting for
SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP." to the changelog.