[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69d2c332-04f1-43df-950f-931f20ad725e@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:10:31 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/page_alloc: don't call pfn_to_page() on possibly
non-existent PFN in split_large_buddy()
On 10.12.24 10:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/10/24 10:34, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> In split_large_buddy(), we might call pfn_to_page() on a PFN that might
>> not exist. In corner cases, such as when freeing the highest pageblock in
>> the last memory section, this could result with CONFIG_SPARSEMEM &&
>> !CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME in __pfn_to_section() returning NULL and
>> and __section_mem_map_addr() dereferencing that NULL pointer.
>>
>> Let's fix it, and avoid doing a pfn_to_page() call for the first
>> iteration, where we already have the page.
>>
>> So far this was found by code inspection, but let's just CC stable as
>> the fix is easy.
>>
>> Fixes: fd919a85cd55 ("mm: page_isolation: prepare for hygienic freelists")
>> Reported-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> Closes: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/e1a898ba-a717-4d20-9144-29df1a6c8813@suse.cz
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>> Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
BTW, staring at nr_isolate_pageblock accounting, I just stumbled over
prep_move_freepages_block(), and I am not sure about the
zone_spans_pfn() checks in there.
With overlapping zones, these are not reliably, which makes me believe
that maybe these checks are not required at all. Or that there is a bug.
Or that there is some implication that these checks are only required on
systems without overlapping zones :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists