Received: by 2002:a4a:301c:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id q28-v6csp416669oof; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 23:00:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61eGUo0pH9jdKnuWFBvoAXqUpWkFgZrWoEw+kw/x+QAe/qXeXGlcl0y2G3upMTB+XiT56pK X-Received: by 2002:a63:3741:: with SMTP id g1-v6mr1785113pgn.59.1537855257919; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 23:00:57 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1537855257; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=QYyQo8EXxxF7pqsCFOmY1OS39OVPus33UQZhRF8m6qvmlYpG/z0ELYUzMMQbDl9KJb VA2ecqhbwwYc/1yXCbIx4RhwxHXeyQaWsxAe91BX/3Y0Qt4U4MA7YppKdtbbHW2j4NY1 XnMtARojHBnZ74VRfFsCTsBv5SoTZABMvqxW6LFUAJEeM7iVZDrt3AU1oql/uIJEG/rZ 29KDEFN92AwA0RjrTQEJbvvPqQjQ4TYANdvvcegKwvZS7/BGiPZnI1u0uZCy7ky/sUqV v9NQjz4TaCbqQhi93Dtcqwx64HOepACGW2CiIYSK5n5sq8f9uicr+wm8UtydeCei/jfO TW5A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=rwFyjDOmtr9EfcEnEoNp3OvSvopIt/bh0CjIcdUMwfA=; b=yPqUVi6VfJsUMDOuCJTDDGxQNohrusBJ8g9QyGzTTdjHbmZJmj231oF4cGX/+B5hTG M6my6pCs7MVflC9eorMZ+V3pZWjRFNVhNvbYslfvQTPyvb57wzkdqqNxnEH4FBeREznH 1Lcct/N267LxY68R0iRicJ74S8s1vnPVVwXwmvVkBhdkoyokHlGbVK+vg/KxJ0CSifMW lfOvgxf5AmMxj5w+zmpn49lur5nMEexpSy7v/KZ6stQPUGIRzJTNaJZ8vlF3sM+jVhI7 CDzGTcCSvbWxykwOCVU4NGmnezbRa+0/ph2OGxgU1JUmmxMFiSaOPzTiB/ryhhLDGwm1 DN5A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y3-v6si1441688pgg.266.2018.09.24.23.00.41; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 23:00:57 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727610AbeIYMFE (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:05:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58148 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726033AbeIYMFD (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:05:03 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1CFAC52; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 05:59:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:59:04 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Andrew Morton Cc: zhe.he@windriver.com, vbabka@suse.cz, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, aaron.lu@intel.com, osalvador@suse.de, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/page_alloc: Fix panic caused by passing debug_guardpage_minorder or kernelcore to command line Message-ID: <20180925055904.GM18685@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1537628013-243902-1-git-send-email-zhe.he@windriver.com> <20180924142408.GC18685@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180924144217.6cabee9f41d0d0ad1757866a@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180924144217.6cabee9f41d0d0ad1757866a@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 24-09-18 14:42:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:24:08 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Sat 22-09-18 22:53:32, zhe.he@windriver.com wrote: > > > From: He Zhe > > > > > > debug_guardpage_minorder_setup and cmdline_parse_kernelcore do not check > > > input argument before using it. The argument would be a NULL pointer if > > > "debug_guardpage_minorder" or "kernelcore", without its value, is set in > > > command line and thus causes the following panic. > > > > > > PANIC: early exception 0xe3 IP 10:ffffffffa08146f1 error 0 cr2 0x0 > > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.19.0-rc4-yocto-standard+ #11 > > > [ 0.000000] RIP: 0010:parse_option_str+0x11/0x90 > > > ... > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > [ 0.000000] cmdline_parse_kernelcore+0x19/0x41 > > > [ 0.000000] do_early_param+0x57/0x8e > > > [ 0.000000] parse_args+0x208/0x320 > > > [ 0.000000] ? rdinit_setup+0x30/0x30 > > > [ 0.000000] parse_early_options+0x29/0x2d > > > [ 0.000000] ? rdinit_setup+0x30/0x30 > > > [ 0.000000] parse_early_param+0x36/0x4d > > > [ 0.000000] setup_arch+0x336/0x99e > > > [ 0.000000] start_kernel+0x6f/0x4ee > > > [ 0.000000] x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26 > > > [ 0.000000] x86_64_start_kernel+0x6f/0x72 > > > [ 0.000000] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 > > > > > > This patch adds a check to prevent the panic > > > > Is this something we deeply care about? The kernel command line > > interface is to be used by admins who know what they are doing. Using > > random or wrong values for these parameters can have detrimental effects > > on the system. This particular case would blow up early, good. At least > > it is visible immediately. This and many other parameters could have a > > seemingly valid input (e.g. not a missing value) and subtle runtime > > effect. You won't blow up immediately but the system is hardly usable > > and the early checking cannot possible catch all those cases. Take a > > mem=$N copied from one machine to another with a different memory > > layout. While 2G can be perfectly fine on one a different machine might > > result on a completely unusable system because the available RAM is > > place higher. > > > > So I am really wondering. Do we really want a lot of code to catch > > kernel command line incorrect inputs? Does it really lead to better > > quality overall? IMHO, we do have a proper documentation and we should > > trust those starting the kernel. > > No, it's not very important. It might help some people understand why > their kernel went splat in rare circumstances. And it's __init code so > the runtime impact is nil. > > It bothers me that there are many other kernel parameters which have > the same undesirable behaviour. I'd much prefer a general fixup which > gave all of them this treatment, but it's unclear how to do this. If early_param took an additional argument to tell "this really requires a parameter" then we could do it in the common code. $ git grep "early_param(\"" | wc -l 251 quite a lot of work for something that hasn't been a problem for years I guess. But maybe this would allow to remove ad-hoc checks in handlers and reduce the overal code size (in LOC) in the end. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs