linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: fix VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(page)) when unpoison memory

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: <a4078c71-acf2-4652-92cb-fb9356703dc6@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 22:24:32 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: nao.horiguchi@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: fix VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(page))
 when unpoison memory

On 19.07.24 05:55, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2024/7/18 13:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 18.07.24 05:04, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> On 2024/7/17 17:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 16.07.24 04:34, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>> On 2024/7/16 0:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.07.24 08:23, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024/7/13 5:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:42:49 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I did memory failure tests recently, below panic occurs:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(page))
>>>>>>>>> kernel BUG at include/linux/page-flags.h:616!
>>>>>>>>> Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
>>>>>>>>> CPU: 3 PID: 720 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.10.0-rc1-00195-g148743902568 #40
>>>>>>>>> RIP: 0010:unpoison_memory+0x2f3/0x590
>>>>>>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffa57fc8787d60 EFLAGS: 00000246
>>>>>>>>> RAX: 0000000000000037 RBX: 0000000000000009 RCX: ffff9be25fcdc9c8
>>>>>>>>> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000027 RDI: ffff9be25fcdc9c0
>>>>>>>>> RBP: 0000000000300000 R08: ffffffffb4956f88 R09: 0000000000009ffb
>>>>>>>>> R10: 0000000000000284 R11: ffffffffb4926fa0 R12: ffffe6b00c000000
>>>>>>>>> R13: ffff9bdb453dfd00 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: fffffffffffffffe
>>>>>>>>> FS:  00007f08f04e4740(0000) GS:ffff9be25fcc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>>>>>>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>>>>>>> CR2: 0000564787a30410 CR3: 000000010d4e2000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
>>>>>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>>>>>>      <TASK>
>>>>>>>>>      unpoison_memory+0x2f3/0x590
>>>>>>>>>      simple_attr_write_xsigned.constprop.0.isra.0+0xb3/0x110
>>>>>>>>>      debugfs_attr_write+0x42/0x60
>>>>>>>>>      full_proxy_write+0x5b/0x80
>>>>>>>>>      vfs_write+0xd5/0x540
>>>>>>>>>      ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
>>>>>>>>>      do_syscall_64+0xb9/0x1d0
>>>>>>>>>      entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
>>>>>>>>> RIP: 0033:0x7f08f0314887
>>>>>>>>> RSP: 002b:00007ffece710078 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
>>>>>>>>> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000009 RCX: 00007f08f0314887
>>>>>>>>> RDX: 0000000000000009 RSI: 0000564787a30410 RDI: 0000000000000001
>>>>>>>>> RBP: 0000564787a30410 R08: 000000000000fefe R09: 000000007fffffff
>>>>>>>>> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000009
>>>>>>>>> R13: 00007f08f041b780 R14: 00007f08f0417600 R15: 00007f08f0416a00
>>>>>>>>>      </TASK>
>>>>>>>>> Modules linked in: hwpoison_inject
>>>>>>>>> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>>>>>>>> RIP: 0010:unpoison_memory+0x2f3/0x590
>>>>>>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffa57fc8787d60 EFLAGS: 00000246
>>>>>>>>> RAX: 0000000000000037 RBX: 0000000000000009 RCX: ffff9be25fcdc9c8
>>>>>>>>> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000027 RDI: ffff9be25fcdc9c0
>>>>>>>>> RBP: 0000000000300000 R08: ffffffffb4956f88 R09: 0000000000009ffb
>>>>>>>>> R10: 0000000000000284 R11: ffffffffb4926fa0 R12: ffffe6b00c000000
>>>>>>>>> R13: ffff9bdb453dfd00 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: fffffffffffffffe
>>>>>>>>> FS:  00007f08f04e4740(0000) GS:ffff9be25fcc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>>>>>>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>>>>>>> CR2: 0000564787a30410 CR3: 000000010d4e2000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
>>>>>>>>> Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
>>>>>>>>> Kernel Offset: 0x31c00000 from 0xffffffff81000000 (relocation range: 0xffffffff80000000-0xffffffffbfffffff)
>>>>>>>>> ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception ]---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The root cause is that unpoison_memory() tries to check the PG_HWPoison
>>>>>>>>> flags of an uninitialized page. So VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(page)) is
>>>>>>>>> triggered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing the call path.  Is this BUG happening via
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> static __always_inline void __ClearPage##uname(struct page *page)    \
>>>>>>>> {                                    \
>>>>>>>>        VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!Page##uname(page), page);            \
>>>>>>>>        page->page_type |= PG_##lname;                    \
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so, where's the callsite?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is BUG on PF_ANY():
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PAGEFLAG(HWPoison, hwpoison, PF_ANY)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define PF_ANY(page, enforce)    PF_POISONED_CHECK(page)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define PF_POISONED_CHECK(page) ({                    \
>>>>>>>        VM_BUG_ON_PGFLAGS(PagePoisoned(page), page);        \
>>>>>>>        page; })
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define    PAGE_POISON_PATTERN    -1l
>>>>>>> static inline int PagePoisoned(const struct page *page)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>        return READ_ONCE(page->flags) == PAGE_POISON_PATTERN;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The offlined pages will have page->flags set to PAGE_POISON_PATTERN while pfn is still valid:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> offline_pages
>>>>>>>       remove_pfn_range_from_zone
>>>>>>>         page_init_poison
>>>>>>>           memset(page, PAGE_POISON_PATTERN, size);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Worth noting that this happens after __offline_isolated_pages() marked the covering sections as offline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we missing a pfn_to_online_page() check somewhere, or are we racing with offlining code that marks the section offline?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking about to use pfn_to_online_page() instead of pfn_to_page() in unpoison_memory() so we can get rid of offlined pages.
>>>>> But there're ZONE_DEVICE pages. They're not-onlined too. And unpoison_memory() should work for them. So we can't simply use
>>>>> pfn_to_online_page() in that. Or am I miss something?
>>>>
>>>> Right, pfn_to_online_page() does not detect ZONE_DEVICE. That has to be handled separately if pfn_to_online_page() would fail.
>>>>
>>>> ... which is what we do in memory_failure():
>>>>
>>>> p = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
>>>> if (!p) {
>>>>       if (pfn_valid(pfn)) {
>>>>           pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn, NULL);
>>>>           put_ref_page(pfn, flags);
>>>>           if (pgmap) {
>>>>               ...
>>>>           }
>>>>       }
>>>>       ...
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Yup, this will be a good alternative. But will it be better to simply check PagePoisoned() instead?
>>
>> The memmap of offline memory sections shall not be touched, so .... don't touch it ;)
>>
>> Especially because that PagePoisoned() check is non-sensical without poisoining-during-memmap-init. You would still work with memory in offline sections.
>>
>> I think the code is even wrong in that regard: we allow for memory offlining to work with HWPoisoned pages, see __offline_isolated_pages(). Staring at unpoison_memory(), we might be putting these pages back to the buddy? Which is completely wrong.
> 
> I agree with you. Thanks for detailed explanation. :)
> Thanks David.

So ... I assume there will be a new patch? :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb