linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y conflict/race with alloc_tag

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: <42114c84.46d0.1979b159a13.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 12:39:33 +0800 (CST)
From: "David Wang" <00107082@....com>
To: "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: oliver.sang@...el.com, urezki@...il.com, ahuang12@...ovo.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bhe@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, lkp@...el.com,
	mjguzik@...il.com, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, harry.yoo@...cle.com,
	kent.overstreet@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y conflict/race with alloc_tag_init


At 2025-06-23 11:16:15, "David Wang" <00107082@....com> wrote:
>
>At 2025-06-23 10:45:31, "David Wang" <00107082@....com> wrote:
>>
>>At 2025-06-23 06:50:44, "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 3:03 AM David Wang <00107082@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 02:25:37PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Hello,
>>>> >
>>>> > for this change, we reported
>>>> > "[linux-next:master] [lib/test_vmalloc.c]  7fc85b92db: Mem-Info"
>>>> > in
>>>> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505071555.e757f1e0-lkp@intel.com/
>>>> >
>>>> > at that time, we made some tests with x86_64 config which runs well.
>>>> >
>>>> > now we noticed the commit is in mainline now.
>>>>
>>>> > the config still has expected diff with parent:
>>>> >
>>>> > --- /pkg/linux/x86_64-randconfig-161-20250614/gcc-12/7a73348e5d4715b5565a53f21c01ea7b54e46cbd/.config   2025-06-17 14:40:29.481052101 +0800
>>>> > +++ /pkg/linux/x86_64-randconfig-161-20250614/gcc-12/2d76e79315e403aab595d4c8830b7a46c19f0f3b/.config   2025-06-17 14:41:18.448543738 +0800
>>>> > @@ -7551,7 +7551,7 @@ CONFIG_TEST_IDA=m
>>>> >  CONFIG_TEST_MISC_MINOR=m
>>>> >  # CONFIG_TEST_LKM is not set
>>>> >  CONFIG_TEST_BITOPS=m
>>>> > -CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=m
>>>> > +CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y
>>>> >  # CONFIG_TEST_BPF is not set
>>>> >  CONFIG_FIND_BIT_BENCHMARK=m
>>>> >  # CONFIG_TEST_FIRMWARE is not set
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > then we noticed similar random issue with x86_64 randconfig this time.
>>>> >
>>>> > 7a73348e5d4715b5 2d76e79315e403aab595d4c8830
>>>> > ---------------- ---------------------------
>>>> >        fail:runs  %reproduction    fail:runs
>>>> >            |             |             |
>>>> >            :199         34%          67:200   dmesg.KASAN:null-ptr-deref_in_range[#-#]
>>>> >            :199         34%          67:200   dmesg.Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception
>>>> >            :199         34%          67:200   dmesg.Mem-Info
>>>> >            :199         34%          67:200   dmesg.Oops:general_protection_fault,probably_for_non-canonical_address#:#[##]SMP_KASAN
>>>> >            :199         34%          67:200   dmesg.RIP:down_read_trylock
>>>> >
>>>> > we don't have enough knowledge to understand the relationship between code
>>>> > change and the random issues. just report what we obsverved in our tests FYI.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I think this is caused by a race between vmalloc_test_init and alloc_tag_init.
>>>>
>>>> vmalloc_test actually depends on alloc_tag via alloc_tag_top_users, because when
>>>> memory allocation fails show_mem() would invoke alloc_tag_top_users.
>>>>
>>>> With following configuration:
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y
>>>> CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING=y
>>>> CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT=y
>>>> CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG=y
>>>>
>>>> If vmalloc_test_init starts before alloc_tag_init, show_mem() would cause
>>>> a NULL deference because alloc_tag_cttype was not init yet.
>>>>
>>>> I add some debug to confirm this theory
>>>> diff --git a/lib/alloc_tag.c b/lib/alloc_tag.c
>>>> index d48b80f3f007..9b8e7501010f 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/alloc_tag.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/alloc_tag.c
>>>> @@ -133,6 +133,8 @@ size_t alloc_tag_top_users(struct codetag_bytes *tags, size_t count, bool can_sl
>>>>         struct codetag *ct;
>>>>         struct codetag_bytes n;
>>>>         unsigned int i, nr = 0;
>>>> +       pr_info("memory profiling alloc top %d: %llx\n", mem_profiling_support, (long long)alloc_tag_cttype);
>>>> +       return 0;
>>>>
>>>>         if (can_sleep)
>>>>                 codetag_lock_module_list(alloc_tag_cttype, true);
>>>> @@ -831,6 +833,7 @@ static int __init alloc_tag_init(void)
>>>>                 shutdown_mem_profiling(true);
>>>>                 return PTR_ERR(alloc_tag_cttype);
>>>>         }
>>>> +       pr_info("memory profiling ready %d: %llx\n", mem_profiling_support, (long long)alloc_tag_cttype);
>>>>
>>>>         return 0;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> When bootup the kernel, the log shows:
>>>>
>>>> $ sudo dmesg -T | grep profiling
>>>> [Fri Jun 20 17:29:35 2025] memory profiling alloc top 1: 0  <--- alloc_tag_cttype == NULL
>>>> [Fri Jun 20 17:30:24 2025] memory profiling ready 1: ffff9b1641aa06c0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> vmalloc_test_init should happened after alloc_tag_init if CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y,
>>>> or mem_show() should check whether alloc_tag is done initialized when calling
>>>> alloc_tag_top_users
>>>
>>>Thanks for reporting!
>>>So, IIUC https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250620195305.1115151-1-harry.yoo@oracle.com/
>>>will address this issue as well. Is that correct?
>>
>>Yes, the panic can be fix by that patch.
>>
>>I still feel it better to delay vmalloc_test_init, make it happen after alloc_tag_init.
>>Or, maybe we can promote alloc_tag_init to some early init? I remember reporting some allocation
>>not registered by memory profiling during boot,  
>>https://lore.kernel.org/all/213ff7d2.7c6c.1945eb0c2ff.Coremail.00107082@163.com/
>>
>>I will make some tests, and update later
>
>The memory allocations in sched_init_domains happened quite early, maybe it is core_initcall, while
> alloc_tag_init needs rootfs, it needs to be after rootfs_initcall, so no reasonable place to promote.......
>But I think this explain why some allocation counter missed during boot: the allocation happened before alloc_tag_init

..... Sorry, I think I was wrong..... The counters does not need alloc_tag_init...

sorry for bothering, please ignore my mumbo jumbo.

David

>
>
>Thanks
>David
>
>>
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>