linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] mm: swap: mTHP swap allocator base on swap cluster order

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: <CAMgjq7Dtw1+aKk3gJkcRL5BXYZHmav_T28aPbZew5qZ87VRHdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:06:16 +0800
From: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, 
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] mm: swap: mTHP swap allocator base on swap cluster order

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:59 PM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:15 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 31.07.24 08:49, Chris Li wrote:
> > > This is the short term solutions "swap cluster order" listed
> > > in my "Swap Abstraction" discussion slice 8 in the recent
> > > LSF/MM conference.
> > >
> >
> > Running the cow.c selftest on mm/mm-unstable, I get:
>
> Hi David, thanks very much for the test and report!
>
> >
> > # [RUN] Basic COW after fork() with mprotect() optimization ... with swapped-out, PTE-mapped THP (1024 kB)
> > [   51.865309] Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdead000000000108: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
> > [   51.867738] CPU: 21 UID: 0 PID: 282 Comm: kworker/21:1 Not tainted 6.11.0-rc1+ #11
> > [   51.869566] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-2.fc40 04/01/2014
> > [   51.871298] Workqueue: events swap_discard_work
> > [   51.872211] RIP: 0010:__free_cluster+0x27/0x90
> > [   51.873101] Code: 90 90 90 0f 1f 44 00 00 8b 0d 8d 95 96 01 55 48 89 fd 53 48 89 f3 85 c9 75 3a 48 8b 43 50 48 8b 4b 48 48 8d 53 48 48 83 c5 60 <48> 89 41 08 48 89 08 48 8b 45 08 48 89 55 08 48 89 43 50 48 89 6b
> > [   51.876720] RSP: 0018:ffffa3dcc0aafdc8 EFLAGS: 00010286
> > [   51.877752] RAX: dead000000000122 RBX: ffff8e7ed9686e00 RCX: dead000000000100
> > [   51.879186] RDX: ffff8e7ed9686e48 RSI: ffff8e7ed9686e18 RDI: ffff8e7ec37831c0
> > [   51.880577] RBP: ffff8e7ec5d10860 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000028
> > [   51.881972] R10: 0000000000000200 R11: 00000000000004cb R12: ffff8e7ed9686e00
> > [   51.883393] R13: 0000000000028200 R14: 0000000000028000 R15: 0000000000000000
> > [   51.884827] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8e822f480000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > [   51.886412] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > [   51.887532] CR2: 00007f37d7e17840 CR3: 0000000335a3a001 CR4: 0000000000770ef0
> > [   51.888931] PKRU: 55555554
> > [   51.889471] Call Trace:
> > [   51.889964]  <TASK>
> > [   51.890391]  ? __die_body.cold+0x19/0x27
> > [   51.891174]  ? die_addr+0x3c/0x60
> > [   51.891824]  ? exc_general_protection+0x14f/0x430
> > [   51.892754]  ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x26/0x30
> > [   51.893717]  ? __free_cluster+0x27/0x90
> > [   51.894483]  ? __free_cluster+0x7e/0x90
> > [   51.895245]  swap_do_scheduled_discard+0x142/0x1b0
> > [   51.896189]  swap_discard_work+0x26/0x30
> > [   51.896958]  process_one_work+0x211/0x5a0
> > [   51.897750]  ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5
> > [   51.898693]  worker_thread+0x1c9/0x3c0
> > [   51.899438]  ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
> > [   51.900287]  kthread+0xe3/0x110
> > [   51.900913]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > [   51.901656]  ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
> > [   51.902377]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > [   51.903114]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> > [   51.903896]  </TASK>
> >
> >
> > Maybe related to this series?
>
> Right, I can reproduce your problem and I believe this patch can fix
> it, see the attachment.
>
> Hi Andrew, can you pick this patch too?

This issue is caused by my PATCH 9/9 and this attachment patch can be
squashed into it, very sorry for the problem.