linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined

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: <CAHbLzkonsnr4yxUOpMpoch1eCVNgR5hC9YaMkPR=fSV2Uszc6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 10:12:49 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 12:54 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon 31-10-22 17:05:06, Zach O'Keefe wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:08 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 31-10-22 11:31:22, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > Syzbot reported the below splat:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 __alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:221 [inline]
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 hpage_collapse_alloc_page mm/khugepaged.c:807 [inline]
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 alloc_charge_hpage+0x802/0xaa0 mm/khugepaged.c:963
> > > > Modules linked in:
> > > > CPU: 1 PID: 3646 Comm: syz-executor210 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc1-syzkaller-00454-ga70385240892 #0
> > > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/11/2022
> > > > RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:221 [inline]
> > > > RIP: 0010:hpage_collapse_alloc_page mm/khugepaged.c:807 [inline]
> > > > RIP: 0010:alloc_charge_hpage+0x802/0xaa0 mm/khugepaged.c:963
> > > > Code: e5 01 4c 89 ee e8 6e f9 ae ff 4d 85 ed 0f 84 28 fc ff ff e8 70 fc ae ff 48 8d 6b ff 4c 8d 63 07 e9 16 fc ff ff e8 5e fc ae ff <0f> 0b e9 96 fa ff ff 41 bc 1a 00 00 00 e9 86 fd ff ff e8 47 fc ae
> > > > RSP: 0018:ffffc90003fdf7d8 EFLAGS: 00010293
> > > > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000
> > > > RDX: ffff888077f457c0 RSI: ffffffff81cd8f42 RDI: 0000000000000001
> > > > RBP: ffff888079388c0c R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
> > > > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000
> > > > R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
> > > > FS:  00007f6b48ccf700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > > CR2: 00007f6b48a819f0 CR3: 00000000171e7000 CR4: 00000000003506e0
> > > > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > > > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > >  <TASK>
> > > >  collapse_file+0x1ca/0x5780 mm/khugepaged.c:1715
> > >
> > > This is quite weird, isn't it? alloc_charge_hpage is selecting the most
> > > busy node (as per collapse_control). How come this can be an offline
> > > node? Is a parallel memory hotplug happening?
> >
> > TBH -- I did not look closely at the syzbot reproducer (let alone
> > attempt to run it) and assumed this was the case. Taking a quick look,
> > at least memory hot remove is enabled:
> >
> > CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=y
> > CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y
> > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=y
> > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_DEFAULT_ONLINE=y
> > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y
> >
> > But looking at the C reproducer, I don't immediately see anywhere
> > where we offline nodes. I'll try to run this tomorrow to make sure I'm
> > not missing something real here.
>
> Looking slightly closer at hpage_collapse_scan_file I think that it is
> possible that xas_for_each simply doesn't find any entries in the page
> cache and with khugepaged_max_ptes_none == HPAGE_PMD_NR we can fall back
> to collapse_file even without any real entries.

The khugepaged_max_ptes_none can't be HPAGE_PMD_NR, it must be <=
(HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1), but MADV_COLLAPSE does ignore it.

But a closer look at the code about how to pick up the preferred node,
there seems to be a corner case for MADV_COLLAPSE.

The code tried to do some balance if several nodes have the same hit
record. Basically it does conceptually:
    * If the target_node <= last_target_node, then iterate from
last_target_node + 1 to MAX_NUMNODES (1024 on default config)
    * If the max_value == node_load[nid], then target_node = nid

So assuming the system has 2 nodes, the target_node is 0 and the
last_target_node is 1, if MADV_COLLAPSE path is hit, then it may
return 2 for target_node, but it is actually not existing (offline),
so the warn is triggered.

The below patch should be able to fix it:

diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index ea0d186bc9d4..d24405e6736b 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -787,7 +787,8 @@ static int hpage_collapse_find_target_node(struct
collapse_control *cc)
        if (target_node <= cc->last_target_node)
                for (nid = cc->last_target_node + 1; nid < MAX_NUMNODES;
                     nid++)
-                       if (max_value == cc->node_load[nid]) {
+                       if (node_online(nid) &&
+                           max_value == cc->node_load[nid]) {
                                target_node = nid;
                                break;
                        }

> But the mere possibility of the hotplug race should be a sufficient
> ground to remove those WARN_ONs

The warn_on did help to catch this bug. But the reasons for removing
it still stand TBH, so we may consider to move this warn_on to the
callers which care about it?

>
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs