Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755384Ab3EHM0M (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 8 May 2013 08:26:12 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:56273 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754403Ab3EHM0L (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 May 2013 08:26:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <518A3DDC.1090905@parallels.com>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1305070936320.2383@kernel.org>
	<20130508003022.GS28721@atomide.com>
	<20130508042422.GU28721@atomide.com>
	<20130508051602.GV28721@atomide.com>
	<CAOJsxLEB2gSWefNHNeKfxv9Hp=H9PG0bGgTcUPE4abz3fv_fxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<518A3DDC.1090905@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 15:26:09 +0300
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Shfu9VeP-YjA_Vg_zdLajhcDGWI
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLEjqNA1wbZta568McFnEb_nbnGF1_9kEhOJkFTX-CobaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v3.10
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1341
Lines: 33

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
> My first guess is that it hit a NULL cache. Being a NULL pointer
> dereference, the thing among all that has the biggest chances of being
> NULL and accessed unconditionally is the cache pointer itself.
>
> Due to the size being too big. But if that were the case, he would have
> hit the WARN_ON recently introduced:
>
>                 if (WARN_ON_ONCE(size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE))
>                         return NULL;
>
>
> Is this WARN hit ?

I doubt it:

[    0.000000] r7 : 00000000  r6 : 600001d3  r5 : 00000000  r4 : 00008000
[    0.000000] r3 : 00000050  r2 : c06ec000  r1 : c06f77c8  r0 : c00eda9c

[    0.000000] [<c00edab4>] (kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x50/0x178) from
[<c0086958>] (alloc_desc+0x24/0xb4)

It's the kzalloc_node() in kernel/irq/irqdesc.c::alloc_desc() and
AFAICT based on r4 it's a 32 KB allocation. It's more likely that
KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH is less than 25 and because kmalloc_index() doesn't
respect it, we return a pointer to an uninitialized kmalloc cache.

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