Re: rcu-torture: Internal error: Oops: 96000006

[Vincenzo Frascino]

On 1/22/21 10:02 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:43:14PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 09:31:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:55:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:37:21PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>>>> While running rcu-torture test on qemu_arm64 and arm64 Juno-r2 device
>>>>> the following kernel crash noticed. This started happening from Linux next
>>>>> next-20210111 tag to next-20210121.
>>>>>
>>>>> metadata:
>>>>>   git branch: master
>>>>>   git repo: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/next/linux-next
>>>>>   git describe: next-20210111
>>>>>   kernel-config: https://builds.tuxbuild.com/1muTTn7AfqcWvH5x2Alxifn7EUH/config
>>>>>
>>>>> output log:
>>>>>
>>>>> [  621.538050] mem_dump_obj() slab test: rcu_torture_stats =
>>>>> ffff0000c0a3ac40, &rhp = ffff800012debe40, rhp = ffff0000c8cba000, &z
>>>>> = ffff8000091ab8e0
>>>>> [  621.546662] mem_dump_obj(ZERO_SIZE_PTR):
>>>>> [  621.546696] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
>>>>> virtual address 0000000000000008
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Huh.  I am relying on virt_addr_valid() rejecting NULL pointers and
>>>> things like ZERO_SIZE_PTR, which is defined as ((void *)16).  It looks
>>>> like your configuration rejects NULL as an invalid virtual address,
>>>> but does not reject ZERO_SIZE_PTR.  Is this the intent, given that you
>>>> are not allowed to dereference a ZERO_SIZE_PTR?
>>>>
>>>> Adding the ARM64 guys on CC for their thoughts.
>>>
>>> Spooky timing, there was a thread _today_ about that:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/ecbc7651-82c4-6518-d4a9-dbdbdf833b5b@xxxxxxx
>>
>> Very good, then my workaround (shown below for Naresh's ease of testing)
>> is only a short-term workaround.  Yay!  ;-)
> 
> Hopefully, though we might need to check other architectures beyond
> arm64, ppc, and x86, to be certain!
> 

Which other architectures do you propose to verify?

> Is there any other latent use of virt_addr_valid() that needs this
> semantic? If so we'll probably want to backport the changes to arm64's
> implementation, at least for v5.10.
> 
> Vincenzo, would you mind taking a look?
> 

I am happy to have a look at it, but due to previous commitments I will be able
to get at it after -rc1. A quick grep shows that there are ~32 cases that might
be affected by the same semantic in the common code (left out arch/ and
drivers/). I will post the improvement for arm64 in the meantime though.

> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo