| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZnvzKSHfYn7A-PPp@pc636>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:53:29 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: Hailong Liu <hailong.liu@...o.com>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...conx.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: kernel crashes when running xfsdump since ~6.4
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:51:32PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 06/26/24 at 06:03pm, Hailong Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, 26. Jun 11:15, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 01:12:06PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 25. Jun 22:05, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > > > * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask
> > > > > > > > > > * @n: the cpu prior to the place to search (i.e. return will be > @n)
> > > > > > > > > > * @srcp: the cpumask pointer
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > * Return: >= nr_cpu_ids if no further cpus set.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ah, I got what you mean. In the vbq case, it may not have chance to get
> > > > > > > > > a return number as nr_cpu_ids. Becuase the hashed index limits the
> > > > > > > > > range to [0, nr_cpu_ids-1], and cpu_possible(index) will guarantee it
> > > > > > > > > won't be the highest cpu number [nr_cpu_ids-1] since CPU[nr_cpu_ids-1] must
> > > > > > > > > be possible CPU.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do I miss some corner cases?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Right. We guarantee that a highest CPU is available by doing: % nr_cpu_ids.
> > > > > > > > So we do not need to use *next_wrap() variant. You do not miss anything :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hailong Liu has proposed more simpler version:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > > index 11fe5ea208aa..e1e63ffb9c57 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -1994,8 +1994,9 @@ static struct xarray *
> > > > > > > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus();
> > > > > > > > + int cpu = cpumask_nth(index, cpu_possible_mask);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks;
> > > > > > > > + return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, cpu).vmap_blocks;
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > which just takes a next CPU if an index is not set in the cpu_possible_mask.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only thing that can be updated in the patch is to replace num_possible_cpu()
> > > > > > > > by the nr_cpu_ids.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any thoughts? I think we need to fix it by a minor change so it is
> > > > > > > > easier to back-port on stable kernels.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, sounds good since the regresson commit is merged in v6.3.
> > > > > > > Please feel free to post this and the hash array patch separately for
> > > > > > > formal reviewing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed! The patch about hash array i will post later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, when I am replying this mail, I check the cpumask_nth()
> > > > > > > again. I doubt it may take more checking then cpu_possible(), given most
> > > > > > > of systems don't have gaps in cpu_possible_mask. I could be dizzy at
> > > > > > > this moment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static inline unsigned int cpumask_nth(unsigned int cpu, const struct cpumask *srcp)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > return find_nth_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), small_cpumask_bits, cpumask_check(cpu));
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, i do not think it is a big problem based on your noted fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Checked. There is a difference:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Default
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > + 15.95% 6.05% [kernel] [k] __vmap_pages_range_noflush
> > > > > + 15.91% 1.74% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <---------------
> > > > > + 15.13% 12.05% [kernel] [k] vunmap_p4d_range
> > > > > + 14.17% 13.38% [kernel] [k] __find_nth_bit <--------------
> > > > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork_asm
> > > > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork
> > > > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] kthread
> > > > > ...
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Check if cpu_possible() and then fallback to cpumask_nth() if not
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > + 6.84% 0.29% [kernel] [k] alloc_vmap_area
> > > > > + 6.80% 6.70% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> > > > > + 4.24% 0.09% [kernel] [k] free_vmap_block
> > > > > + 2.41% 2.38% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <-----------
> > > > > + 1.94% 1.91% [kernel] [k] xas_start
> > > > > ...
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > It is _worth_ to check if an index is in possible mask:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > index 45e1506d58c3..af20f78c2cbf 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > @@ -2542,7 +2542,10 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_block_queue);
> > > > > static struct xarray *
> > > > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus();
> > > > > + int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % nr_cpu_ids;
> > > > IIUC, use nr_cpu_ids here maybe incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > take b101 as example, nr_cpu_ids is 3. if index is 2 cpumask_nth(2, cpu_possible_mask);
> > > > might return 64.
> > > >
> > > But then a CPU2 becomes possible? Cutting by % nr_cpu_ids generates values < nr_cpu_ids.
> > > So, last CPU is always possible and we never do cpumask_nth() on a last possible CPU.
> > >
> > > What i miss here?
> > >
> > Sorry, I forget to reply to all :), I write a demo to test as follows:
> >
> > static int cpumask_init(void)
> > {
> > struct cpumask mask;
> > unsigned int cpu_id;
> > cpumask_clear(&mask);
> >
> > cpumask_set_cpu(1, &mask);
> > cpumask_set_cpu(3, &mask);
> > cpumask_set_cpu(5, &mask);
> >
> > cpu_id = find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(&mask), NR_CPUS) + 1;
> > pr_info("cpu_id:%d\n", cpu_id);
> >
> > for (; i < nr_cpu_ids; i++) {
> > pr_info("%d: cpu_%d\n", i, cpumask_nth(i, &mask));
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > [ 1.337020][ T1] cpu_id:6
> > [ 1.337338][ T1] 0: cpu_1
> > [ 1.337558][ T1] 1: cpu_3
> > [ 1.337751][ T1] 2: cpu_5
> > [ 1.337960][ T1] 3: cpu_64
> > [ 1.338183][ T1] 4: cpu_64
> > [ 1.338387][ T1] 5: cpu_64
> > [ 1.338594][ T1] 6: cpu_64
> >
> > In summary, the nr_cpu_ids = last_bit + 1, and cpumask_nth() return the nth cpu_id.
>
> I think just using below change for a quick fix is enough. It doesn't
> have the issue cpumask_nth() has and very simple. For most of systems,
> it only adds an extra cpu_possible(idex) checking.
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 633363997dec..59a8951cc6c0 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2542,7 +2542,10 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_block_queue);
> static struct xarray *
> addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr)
> {
> - int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus();
> + int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % nr_cpu_ids;
> +
> + if (!cpu_possible(idex))
> + index = cpumask_next(index, cpu_possible_mask);
>
> return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks;
> }
>
Just submitted the same :) I will send out the patch.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists