linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zswap: don't warn if none swapcache folio is passed to zswap

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: <26949c92-95a0-414f-918a-8b8cc11e3e9c@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:09:33 +0800
From:   "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <willy@...radead.org>,
        <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zswap: don't warn if none swapcache folio is passed to
 zswap_load



On 8/11/2023 2:44 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 3:58 AM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> With mm-unstable branch, if trigger swap activity and it's possible
>> see following warning:
>> [  178.093511][  T651] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 651 at mm/zswap.c:1387 zswap_load+0x67/0x570
>> [  178.095155][  T651] Modules linked in:
>> [  178.096103][  T651] CPU: 2 PID: 651 Comm: gmain Not tainted 6.5.0-rc4-00492-gad3232df3e41 #148
>> [  178.098372][  T651] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX,1996), BIOS 1.14.0-2 04/01/2014
>> [  178.101114][  T651] RIP: 0010:zswap_load+0x67/0x570
>> [  178.102359][  T651] Code: a0 78 4b 85 e8 ea db ff ff 48 8b 00 a8 01 0f 84 84 04 00 00 48 89 df e8 d7 db ff ff 48 8b 00 a9 00 00 08 00 0f 85 c4
>> [  178.106376][  T651] RSP: 0018:ffffc900011b3760 EFLAGS: 00010246
>> [  178.107675][  T651] RAX: 0017ffffc0080001 RBX: ffffea0004a991c0 RCX:ffffc900011b37dc
>> [  178.109242][  T651] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI:ffffea0004a991c0
>> [  178.110916][  T651] RBP: ffffea0004a991c0 R08: 0000000000000243 R09:00000000c9a1aafc
>> [  178.112377][  T651] R10: 00000000c9657db3 R11: 000000003c9657db R12:0000000000014b9c
>> [  178.113698][  T651] R13: ffff88813501e710 R14: ffff88810d591000 R15:0000000000000000
>> [  178.115008][  T651] FS:  00007fb21a9ff700(0000) GS:ffff88813bc80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> [  178.116423][  T651] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> [  178.117421][  T651] CR2: 00005632cbfc81f6 CR3: 0000000131450002 CR4:0000000000370ee0
>> [  178.118683][  T651] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2:0000000000000000
>> [  178.119894][  T651] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7:0000000000000400
>> [  178.121087][  T651] Call Trace:
>> [  178.121654][  T651]  <TASK>
>> [  178.122109][  T651]  ? zswap_load+0x67/0x570
>> [  178.122658][  T651]  ? __warn+0x81/0x170
>> [  178.123119][  T651]  ? zswap_load+0x67/0x570
>> [  178.123608][  T651]  ? report_bug+0x167/0x190
>> [  178.124150][  T651]  ? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70
>> [  178.124615][  T651]  ? exc_invalid_op+0x13/0x60
>> [  178.125192][  T651]  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
>> [  178.125753][  T651]  ? zswap_load+0x67/0x570
>> [  178.126231][  T651]  ? lock_acquire+0xbb/0x290
>> [  178.126745][  T651]  ? folio_add_lru+0x40/0x1c0
>> [  178.127261][  T651]  ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
>> [  178.127776][  T651]  swap_readpage+0xc7/0x5c0
>> [  178.128273][  T651]  do_swap_page+0x86d/0xf50
>> [  178.128770][  T651]  ? __pte_offset_map+0x3e/0x290
>> [  178.129321][  T651]  ? __pte_offset_map+0x1c4/0x290
>> [  178.129883][  T651]  __handle_mm_fault+0x6ad/0xca0
>> [  178.130419][  T651]  handle_mm_fault+0x18b/0x410
>> [  178.130992][  T651]  do_user_addr_fault+0x1f1/0x820
>> [  178.132076][  T651]  exc_page_fault+0x63/0x1a0
>> [  178.132599][  T651]  asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30
>>
>> It's possible that swap_readpage() is called with none swapcache folio
>> in do_swap_page() and trigger this warning. So we shouldn't assume
>> zswap_load() always takes swapcache folio.
> 
> Did you use a bdev with QUEUE_FLAG_SYNCHRONOUS? Otherwise it sounds
> like a bug to me.
I hit this warning with zram which has QUEUE_FLAG_SYNCHRONOUS set. Thanks.


Regards
Yin, Fengwei