linux-kernel - Re: memory offline infinite loop after soft offline

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: <20200515034809.GA27576@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 03:48:10 +0000
From:   HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口　直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
CC:     Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: memory offline infinite loop after soft offline

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:46:33PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 20, 2019, at 11:16 PM, Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 07:56:09AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>    On Oct 18, 2019, at 2:35 AM, Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> >>    wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>    You're right, then I don't see how this happens. If the error hugepage was
> >>    isolated without having PG_hwpoison set, it's unexpected and problematic.
> >>    I'm testing myself with v5.4-rc2 (simply ran move_pages12 and did hotremove
> >>    /hotadd)
> >>    but don't reproduce the issue yet.  Do we need specific kernel version/
> >>    config
> >>    to trigger this?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> This is reproducible on linux-next with the config. Not sure if it is
> >> reproducible on x86.
> >> 
> >> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cailca/linux-mm/master/powerpc.config
> >> 
> >> and kernel cmdline if that matters
> >> 
> >> page_poison=on page_owner=on numa_balancing=enable \
> >> systemd.unified_cgroup_hierarchy=1 debug_guardpage_minorder=1 \
> >> page_alloc.shuffle=1
> > 
> > Thanks for the info.
> > 
> >> 
> >> BTW, where does the code set PG_hwpoison for the head page?
> > 
> > Precisely speaking, soft offline only sets PG_hwpoison after the target
> > hugepage is successfully dissolved (then it's not a hugepage any more),
> > so PG_hwpoison is set on the raw page in set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page().
> > 
> > In move_pages12 case, madvise(MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE) is called for the range
> > of 2 hugepages, so the expected result is that page offset 0 and 512
> > are marked as PG_hwpoison after injection.
> > 
> > Looking at your dump_page() output, the end_pfn is page offset 1
> > ("page:c00c000800458040" is likely to point to pfn 0x11601.)
> > The page belongs to high order buddy free page, but doesn't have
> > PageBuddy nor PageHWPoison because it was not the head page or
> > the raw error page.
> > 
> >> Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem. It looks to me that in            
> >> soft_offline_huge_page(), set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page() will only set            
> >> PG_hwpoison for buddy pages, so the even the compound_head() has no PG_hwpoison   
> >> set.                                                                              
> > 
> > Your analysis is totally correct, and this behavior will be fixed by
> > the change (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/17/551) in Oscar's rework.
> > The raw error page will be taken off from buddy system and the other
> > subpages are properly split into lower orderer pages (we'll properly
> > manage PageBuddy flags). So all possible cases would be covered by
> > branches in __test_page_isolated_in_pageblock.
> 
> Naoya, Oscar, it looks like this series was stuck.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/17/551
> 
> I can still reproduce this issue as today. Maybe it is best we could post a single patch (which one?) to fix the loop first?

I'm very sorry to be quiet for long, but I think that I agree with
this patchset and try to see what happend if merged into mmtom,
although we need rebaseing to latest mmotm and some basic testing.