[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <34bcf011-b4ac-479c-92ce-852623e73039@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:14:58 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ezra Buehler <ezra@...yb.ch>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
"Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] NULL pointer dereference on ARM (AT91SAM9G25) during
compaction
On 11.02.25 04:45, Qi Zheng wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On 2025/2/11 01:03, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:49:38PM +0100, Ezra Buehler wrote:
>>> When running vanilla Linux 6.13 or newer (6.14-rc2) on the
>>> AT91SAM9G25-based GARDENA smart Gateway, we are seeing a NULL pointer
>>> dereference resulting in a kernel panic. The culprit seems to be commit
>>> fc9c45b71f43 ("arm: adjust_pte() usepte_offset_map_rw_nolock()").
>>> Reverting the commit apparently fixes the issue.
>>
>> The blamed commit is buggy:
>>
>> arch/arm/include/asm/tlbflush.h:
>> #define update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, ptep) \
>> update_mmu_cache_range(NULL, vma, addr, ptep, 1)
>>
>> So vmf can be NULL. This didn't used to matter before this commit,
>> because vmf was not used by ARM's update_mmu_cache_range(). However,
>> the commit introduced a dereference of it, which now causes a NULL
>> point dereference.
>>
>> Not sure what the correct solution is, but at a guess, both:
>>
>> if (ptl != vmf->ptl)
>>
>> need to become:
>>
>> if (!vmf || ptl != vmf->ptl)
>
> No, we can't do that, because without using split PTE locks, we would
> use shared mm->page_table_lock, which would create a deadlock.
Maybe we can simply special-case on CONFIG_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS ?
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS)) {
...
}
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists