[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <lisylv2horoqxszuajysz6gp5nv4pkfhtdehi7wkp3oidao6dj@djh3zzri56dt>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:32:05 +0100
From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Changbin Du <changbin.du@...wei.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: kmsan: fix instrumentation recursion on preempt_count
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:42:29AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 07:23:30PM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > This disables msan check for preempt_count_{add,sub} to fix a
> > instrumentation recursion issue on preempt_count:
> >
> > __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_4() -> kmsan_virt_addr_valid() ->
> > preempt_disable() -> __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_4()
> >
> > With this fix, I was able to run kmsan kernel with:
> > o CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=n
> > o CONFIG_KFENCE=n
> > o CONFIG_LOCKDEP=n
> >
> > KMEMLEAK and KFENCE generate too many false positives in unwinding code.
> > LOCKDEP still introduces instrumenting recursions issue. But these are
> > other issues expected to be fixed.
> >
> > Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...wei.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 9116bcc90346..5b63bb98e60a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -5848,7 +5848,7 @@ static inline void preempt_latency_start(int val)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -void preempt_count_add(int val)
> > +void __no_kmsan_checks preempt_count_add(int val)
> > {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> > /*
> > @@ -5880,7 +5880,7 @@ static inline void preempt_latency_stop(int val)
> > trace_preempt_on(CALLER_ADDR0, get_lock_parent_ip());
> > }
>
> What prevents a larger loop via one of the calles of preempt_count_{add,sub}()
>
> For example, via preempt_latency_{start,stop}() ?
>
> ... or via some *other* instrumentation that might be placed in those?
>
> I suspect we should be using noinstr or __always_inline in a bunch of places to
> clean this up properly.
>
> Mark.
Hi,
I tried the patch with the ftrace testsuite, and this uncovered another
loop, as predicted here:
preempt_count_add():int3
function_trace_call()
__msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_8()
kmsan_get_shadow_origin_ptr()
kmsan_get_metadata()
virt_to_page_or_null()
preempt_count_add()
Best regards,
Ilya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists