[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dc7800c0-43f3-6453-ef5f-1ceb659062de@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:22:12 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, yee.lee@...iatek.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"open list:KFENCE" <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: kfence: apply kmemleak_ignore_phys on early
allocated pool
On 7/19/22 16:13, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:26:25 +0200 Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 at 20:43, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> - This patch has been accused of crashing the kernel:
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YsFeUHkrFTQ7T51Q@xsang-OptiPlex-9020
>>>>
>>>> Do we think that report is bogus?
>>> I think all of this is highly architecture-specific...
>> The report can be reproduced on i386 with CONFIG_X86_PAE=y. But e.g.
>> mm/memblock.c:memblock_free() is also guilty of using __pa() on
>> previously memblock_alloc()'d addresses. Looking at the phys addr
>> before memblock_alloc() does virt_to_phys(), the result of __pa()
>> looks correct even on PAE, at least for the purpose of passing it on
>> to kmemleak(). So I don't know what that BUG_ON(slow_virt_to_phys() !=
>> phys_addr) is supposed to tell us here.
>>
> It's only been nine years, so I'm sure Dave can remember why he added
> it ;)
>
> BUG_ON(slow_virt_to_phys((void *)x) != phys_addr);
>
> in arch/x86/mm/physaddr.c:__phys_addr().
I think I intended it to double check that the linear map is *actually*
a linear map for 'x'. Sure, we can use the "x - PAGE_OFFSET" shortcut,
but did it turn out to be actually accurate for the address it was handed?
I'd be curious what the page tables actually say for the address that's
causing problems.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists