Message-ID: <f8eca7b1-08c9-48a6-b7f1-cbf9cb6b568f@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 16:41:43 +0800
From: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	syzbot <syzbot+50ef73537bbc393a25bb@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>, Matthew Wilcox
	<willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] WARNING in __folio_rmap_sanity_checks



On 2024/1/5 16:14, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 02:20, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/1/5 05:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 03.01.24 15:16, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/3/2024 8:13 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 03.01.24 12:48, syzbot wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> syzbot found the following issue on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HEAD commit:    ab0b3e6ef50d Add linux-next specific files for 20240102
>>>>>> git tree:       linux-next
>>>>>> console+strace: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=17be3e09e80000
>>>>>> kernel config:
>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=a14a6350374945f9
>>>>>> dashboard link:
>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=50ef73537bbc393a25bb
>>>>>> compiler:       gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils
>>>>>> for Debian) 2.40
>>>>>> syz repro:
>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=14e2256ee80000
>>>>>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=17b57db5e80000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Downloadable assets:
>>>>>> disk image:
>>>>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/4e6376fe5764/disk-ab0b3e6e.raw.xz
>>>>>> vmlinux:
>>>>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/7cb9ecbaf001/vmlinux-ab0b3e6e.xz
>>>>>> kernel image:
>>>>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/2c1a9a6d424f/bzImage-ab0b3e6e.xz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue was bisected to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 68f0320824fa59c5429cbc811e6c46e7a30ea32c
>>>>>> Author: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>>>> Date:   Wed Dec 20 22:44:31 2023 +0000
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        mm/rmap: convert folio_add_file_rmap_range() into
>>>>>> folio_add_file_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bisection log:
>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=10b9e1b1e80000
>>>>>> final oops:
>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=12b9e1b1e80000
>>>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=14b9e1b1e80000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the
>>>>>> commit:
>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+50ef73537bbc393a25bb@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>>>>> Fixes: 68f0320824fa ("mm/rmap: convert folio_add_file_rmap_range()
>>>>>> into folio_add_file_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     kasan_quarantine_reduce+0x18e/0x1d0 mm/kasan/quarantine.c:283
>>>>>>     __kasan_slab_alloc+0x65/0x90 mm/kasan/common.c:324
>>>>>>     kasan_slab_alloc include/linux/kasan.h:201 [inline]
>>>>>>     slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3813 [inline]
>>>>>>     slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3860 [inline]
>>>>>>     kmem_cache_alloc+0x136/0x320 mm/slub.c:3867
>>>>>>     vm_area_alloc+0x1f/0x220 kernel/fork.c:465
>>>>>>     mmap_region+0x3ae/0x2a90 mm/mmap.c:2804
>>>>>>     do_mmap+0x890/0xef0 mm/mmap.c:1379
>>>>>>     vm_mmap_pgoff+0x1a7/0x3c0 mm/util.c:573
>>>>>>     ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x421/0x5a0 mm/mmap.c:1425
>>>>>>     __do_sys_mmap arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:93 [inline]
>>>>>>     __se_sys_mmap arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:86 [inline]
>>>>>>     __x64_sys_mmap+0x125/0x190 arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:86
>>>>>>     do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
>>>>>>     do_syscall_64+0xd0/0x250 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
>>>>>>     entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x62/0x6a
>>>>>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>>> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 5059 at include/linux/rmap.h:202
>>>>>> __folio_rmap_sanity_checks+0x4d5/0x630 include/linux/rmap.h:202
>>>>>> Modules linked in:
>>>>>> CPU: 1 PID: 5059 Comm: syz-executor115 Not tainted
>>>>>> 6.7.0-rc8-next-20240102-syzkaller #0
>>>>>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
>>>>>> BIOS Google 11/17/2023
>>>>>> RIP: 0010:__folio_rmap_sanity_checks+0x4d5/0x630 include/linux/rmap.h:202
>>>>>> Code: 41 83 e4 01 44 89 e6 e8 79 bc b7 ff 45 84 e4 0f 85 08 fc ff ff
>>>>>> e8 3b c1 b7 ff 48 c7 c6 e0 b5 d9 8a 48 89 df e8 5c 12 f7 ff 90 <0f> 0b
>>>>>> 90 e9 eb fb ff ff e8 1e c1 b7 ff be 01 00 00 00 48 89 df e8
>>>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffc900038df978 EFLAGS: 00010293
>>>>>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffea00008cde00 RCX: ffffffff81687419
>>>>>> RDX: ffff88807becbb80 RSI: ffffffff81d06104 RDI: 0000000000000000
>>>>>> RBP: ffffea00008cde00 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: fffffbfff1e75f6a
>>>>>> R10: ffffffff8f3afb57 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000000
>>>>>> R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: dffffc0000000000
>>>>>> FS:  0000555556508380(0000) GS:ffff8880b9900000(0000)
>>>>>> knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>>>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>>>> CR2: 00000000200000c0 CR3: 0000000079000000 CR4: 00000000003506f0
>>>>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>>>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>>>     <TASK>
>>>>>>     __folio_add_rmap mm/rmap.c:1167 [inline]
>>>>>>     __folio_add_file_rmap mm/rmap.c:1452 [inline]
>>>>>>     folio_add_file_rmap_ptes+0x8e/0x2c0 mm/rmap.c:1478
>>>>>>     insert_page_into_pte_locked.isra.0+0x34d/0x960 mm/memory.c:1874
>>>>>>     insert_page mm/memory.c:1900 [inline]
>>>>>>     vm_insert_page+0x62c/0x8c0 mm/memory.c:2053
>>>>>>     packet_mmap+0x314/0x570 net/packet/af_packet.c:4594
>>>>>>     call_mmap include/linux/fs.h:2090 [inline]
>>>>>>     mmap_region+0x745/0x2a90 mm/mmap.c:2819
>>>>>>     do_mmap+0x890/0xef0 mm/mmap.c:1379
>>>>>>     vm_mmap_pgoff+0x1a7/0x3c0 mm/util.c:573
>>>>>>     ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x421/0x5a0 mm/mmap.c:1425
>>>>>>     __do_sys_mmap arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:93 [inline]
>>>>>>     __se_sys_mmap arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:86 [inline]
>>>>>>     __x64_sys_mmap+0x125/0x190 arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:86
>>>>>>     do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
>>>>>>     do_syscall_64+0xd0/0x250 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
>>>>>>     entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x62/0x6a
>>>>>
>>>>> If I am not wrong, that triggers:
>>>>>
>>>>> VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
>>>>>             !folio_test_large_rmappable(folio), folio);
>>>>>
>>>>> So we are trying to rmap a large folio that did not go through
>>>>> folio_prep_large_rmappable().
> 
> Would someone mind explaining the rules to me for this? As far as I can see,
> folio_prep_large_rmappable() just inits the _deferred_list and sets a flag so we
> remember to deinit the list on destruction. Why can't we just init that list for
> all folios order-2 or greater? Then everything is rmappable?
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> net/packet/af_packet.c calls vm_insert_page() on some pages/folios stoed
>>>>> in the "struct packet_ring_buffer". No idea where that comes from, but I
>>>>> suspect it's simply some compound allocation.
>>>> Looks like:
>>>>     alloc_pg_vec
>>>>       alloc_one_pg_vec_page
>>>>            gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_COMP |
>>>>                              __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY;
>>>>
>>>>            buffer = (char *) __get_free_pages(gfp_flags, order);
>>>> So you are right here... :).
>>>
>>> Hm, but I wonder if this something that's supposed to work or is this one of
>>> the cases where we should actually use a VM_PFN mapping?
>>>
>>> It's not a pagecache(file/shmem) page after all.
>>>
>>> We could relax that check and document why we expect something that is not
>>> marked rmappable. But it fells wrong. I suspect this should be a VM_PFNMAP
>>> instead (like recent udmabuf changes).
>>
>> VM_PFNMAP looks correct.
> 
> And why is making the folio rmappable and mapping it the normal way not the
> right solution here? Because the folio could be order-1? Or something more profound?
My understanding is order 1 could be one reason. Another thing I can
tell is the page here is not anonymous page or file-backed pagecache.
So it can't be large rmappable as David pointed out.

> 
>>
>> I do have another question: why do we just check the large folio
>> rmappable? Does that mean order0 folio is always rmappable?
>>
>> I ask this because vm_insert_pages() is called in net/ipv4/tcp.c
>> and drivers call vm_insert_page. I suppose they all need be VM_PFNMAP.
>>
>> There is not warning because we didn't check order0 folio rmappable.
Please ignore my question above. I messed the rmappable folio and 
add_rmap().


Regards
Yin, Fengwei

>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Yin, Fengwei
>>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists