linux-kernel - Re: next: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1200 at mm/page_alloc.c:4744 __alloc

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]

Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 17:01:31 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To:     Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "kunit-dev@...glegroups.com" <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org" <lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: next: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1200 at mm/page_alloc.c:4744
 __alloc_pages+0x2e8/0x3a0

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:56:30PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 12, 2023, at 6:32 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure Chuck Lever did this intentionally, but he's not on the
> > CC list.  Let's add him.
> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> > 
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 06:15:04PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >> Following kernel warning has been noticed on qemu-arm64 while running kunit
> >> tests while booting Linux 6.4.0-rc1-next-20230512 and It was started from
> >> 6.3.0-rc7-next-20230420.
> >> 
> >> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
> >> 
> >> This is always reproducible on qemu-arm64, qemu-arm, qemu-x86 and qemu-i386.
> >> Is this expected warning as a part of kunit tests ?
> 
> Dan's correct, this Kunit test is supposed to check the
> behavior of the API when a too-large privsize is specified.
> 
> I'm not sure how to make this work without the superfluous
> warning. Would adding GFP_NOWARN to the allocation help?

That would silence the splat, yes.

regards,
dan carpenter