Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: WARNING in kvmalloc_node
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+1a240cdb1f4cc88819df@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
References: <001a1144c4ca5dc9d6056520c7b7@google.com>
 <20180214025533.GA28811@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20180214084308.GX3443@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <f3fda93e-b223-3c94-3213-43cad4346716@iogearbox.net>
 <24351362-a099-3317-2b96-8cdc6835eb1e@redhat.com>
 <20180214115119.GA3443@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <62489a86-b578-b075-3ada-c2f5baf5b787@redhat.com>
 <dcbb4ead-2a76-310c-69dc-4f253e711fe9@iogearbox.net>
 <20180214132950.2d06e612@redhat.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ce8cbaab-796b-2838-d1c4-c63243fb5f69@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:47:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180214132950.2d06e612@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2018年02月14日 20:29, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:17:18 +0100
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 02/14/2018 01:02 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2018年02月14日 19:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Wed 14-02-18 19:47:30, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2018年02月14日 17:28, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>>> [ +Jason, +Jesper ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/14/2018 09:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue 13-02-18 18:55:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:59:01PM -0800, syzbot wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>     kvmalloc include/linux/mm.h:541 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>     kvmalloc_array include/linux/mm.h:557 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>     __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc include/linux/ptr_ring.h:474 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>     ptr_ring_init include/linux/ptr_ring.h:492 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>     __cpu_map_entry_alloc kernel/bpf/cpumap.c:359 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>     cpu_map_update_elem+0x3c3/0x8e0 kernel/bpf/cpumap.c:490
>>>>>>>>>     map_update_elem kernel/bpf/syscall.c:698 [inline]
>>>>>>>> Blame the BPF people, not the MM people ;-)
>>>>>> Heh, not really. ;-)
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>> Yes. kvmalloc (the vmalloc part) doesn't support GFP_ATOMIC semantic.
>>>>>> Agree, that doesn't work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug was added in commit 0bf7800f1799 ("ptr_ring: try vmalloc() when kmalloc() fails").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason, please take a look at fixing this, thanks!
>>>>> It looks to me the only solution is to revert that commit.
>>>> Do you really need this to be GFP_ATOMIC? I can see some callers are
>>>> under RCU read lock but can we perhaps do the allocation outside of this
>>>> section?
>>> If I understand the code correctly, the code would be called by XDP program (usually run inside a bh) which makes it hard to do this.
>>>
>>> Rethink of this, we can probably test gfp and not call kvmalloc if GFP_ATOMIC is set in __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc().
>> That would be one option indeed (probably useful in any case to make the API
>> more robust). Another one is to just not use GFP_ATOMIC in cpumap. Looking at
>> it, update can neither be called out of a BPF prog since prevented by verifier
>> nor under RCU reader side when updating this type of map from syscall path.
>> Jesper, any concrete reason we still need GFP_ATOMIC here?
> Allocations in cpumap (related to ptr_ring) should only be possible to
> be initiated through userspace via bpf-syscall.

I see verifier guarantees this.

>   Thus, there isn't any
> reason for GFP_ATOMIC here.
>

Want me to send a patch to remove GFP_ATOMIC here?

Thanks