[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ae7ce03d-0938-44b9-a2b5-74842016f32b@antgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 21:14:45 +0800
From: "Tiwei Bie" <tiwei.btw@...group.com>
To: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com,
yu.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [sched/eevdf] 2227a957e1:
BUG:kernel_NULL_pointer_dereference,address
On 1/31/24 8:28 PM, Abel Wu wrote:
> On 1/31/24 8:10 PM, Tiwei Bie Wrote:
>> On 1/30/24 6:13 PM, Abel Wu wrote:
>>> On 1/30/24 3:24 PM, kernel test robot Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ 512.079810][ T8305] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000002c
>>>> [ 512.080897][ T8305] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
>>>> [ 512.081636][ T8305] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
>>>> [ 512.082337][ T8305] *pde = 00000000
>>>> [ 512.082829][ T8305] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>>>> [ 512.083407][ T8305] CPU: 1 PID: 8305 Comm: watchdog Tainted: G W N 6.7.0-rc1-00006-g2227a957e1d5 #1 819e6d1a8b887f5f97adb4aed77d98b15504c836
>>>> [ 512.084986][ T8305] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014
>>>> [ 512.086203][ T8305] EIP: set_next_entity (fair.c:?)
>>>
>>> There was actually a NULL-test in pick_eevdf() before this commit,
>>> but I removed it by intent as I found it impossible to be NULL after
>>> examining 'all' the cases.
>>>
>>> Also cc Tiwei who once proposed to add this check back.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231208112100.18141-1-tiwei.btw@antgroup.com/
>>
>> Thanks for cc'ing me. That's the case I worried about and why I thought
>> it might be worthwhile to add the sanity check back. I just sent out a
>> new version of the above patch with updated commit log and error message.
>
> I assuming the real problem is why it *can* be NULL at first place.
> IMHO the NULL check with a fallback selection doesn't solve this, but
> it indeed avoids kernel panic which is absolutely important.
I totally agree. The scheduling failure is unexpected and should be
addressed. And the sanity check is just to log the failures and avoid
unnecessary crashes in such situations.
Regards,
Tiwei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists