Re: v2.6.26-rc7: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointerdereference

[Gautham R Shenoy]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:14:51PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 June 2008 18:06:23 Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 11:36 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 24 June 2008 02:58:44 Mike Travis wrote:
> > > > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > > On Monday 23 June 2008 02:29:07 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > > >> And the (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) fails because the CPU has just been
> > > > >> offlined (or failed to initialize, but it's the same thing), while
> > > > >> NR_CPUS is the value that was compiled in as CONFIG_NR_CPUS (so the
> > > > >> former check will always be true).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't think it is valid to ask for a per_cpu() variable on a CPU
> > > > >> which does not exist, though
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it is.  As long as cpu_possible(cpu), per_cpu(cpu) is valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > The number check should be removed: checking cpu_possible() is
> > > > > sufficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope that helps,
> > > > > Rusty.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see a check for index being out of range in cpu_possible().
> > >
> > > You're right.  It assumes cpu is < NR_CPUS.  Hmm, I have no idea what's
> > > going on.  nr_cpu_ids (ignore that it's a horrible name for a bad idea)
> > > should be fine to test against.
> > >
> > > Vegard's analysis is flawed: just because cpu is offline, it still must
> > > be < nr_cpu_ids, which is based on possible cpus.  Unless something crazy
> > > is happening, but a quick grep doesn't reveal anyone manipulating
> > > nr_cpu_ids.
> > >
> > > If changing this fixes the bug, something else is badly wrong...
> > > Rusty.
> >
> > In function _cpu_up, the panic happens when calling
> > __raw_notifier_call_chain at the second time. Kernel doesn't panic when
> > calling it at the first time. If just say because ïof nr_cpu_ids, that's
> > not right.
> >
> > By checking source codes, I find function do_boot_cpu is the culprit.
> > Consider below call chain:
> >  _cpu_up=>__cpu_up=>smp_ops.cpu_up=>native_cpu_up=>do_boot_cpu.
> >
> > So ïdo_boot_cpu is called in the end. In ïdo_boot_cpu, if boot_error==true,
> > cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_possible_map) is executed. So later on, when ï_cpu_up
> > calls ï__raw_notifier_call_chain at the second time to report
> > CPU_UP_CANCELED, because this cpu is already cleared from
> > ïcpu_possible_map, get_cpu_sysdev returns NULL.
> >
> > Many resources are related to ïcpu_possible_map, so it's better not to
> > change it.
> >
> > Below patch against 2.6.26-rc7 fixes it by removing the bit clearing in
> > ïcpu_possible_map.
> >
> > Vegard, would you like to help test it?
> >
> > ïïïSigned-off-by: Zhang Yanmin ï<yanmin_zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff -Nraup linux-2.6.26-rc7/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > linux-2.6.26-rc7_cpuhotplug/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c ---
> > linux-2.6.26-rc7/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c	2008-06-24 09:03:54.000000000
> > +0800 +++ linux-2.6.26-rc7_cpuhotplug/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c	2008-06-24
> > 09:04:45.000000000 +0800 @@ -996,7 +996,6 @@ do_rest:
> >  #endif
> >  		cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_callout_map); /* was set by do_boot_cpu() */
> >  		cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_initialized); /* was set by cpu_init() */
> > -		cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_possible_map);
> >  		cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_present_map);

Nice catch.

While we're at it, is the clearing of cpu from the cpu_present_map
necessary if cpu_up failed for 'cpu' ?

> >  		per_cpu(x86_cpu_to_apicid, cpu) = BAD_APICID;
> >  	}
> 
> Nice catch.  Basically, cpu_possible_map should only be cleared at boot, and 
> probably not even then.
> 
> Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks,
> Rusty.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
gautham
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/