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: kmemleak panic
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sri Krishna chowdary <schowdary@nvidia.com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <f6fbf528-8213-e3b8-6990-9fcf9dec04d6@free.fr>
 <20190118143434.GE118707@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
 <b7629ecf-757c-f8b5-df83-ba83d7036b2f@free.fr>
 <20190119132832.GA29881@MBP.local>
 <6579db26-10ac-3fbf-1998-5b937a38f202@free.fr>
 <d4facdc2-0581-929f-caa2-b9efa9bd8f97@arm.com>
 <CAL_JsqKFT8J6g02gxeBiTfBb_XHhp2-ZNB6DgaLPK85kNZGRig@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190121143704.GE29504@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
 <CAL_JsqKQb34zVNTzo9DLNiDwmWGxkrKezSOjwCUPAvgzUoLYjg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <0cecfda4-e2c3-9282-12b1-fbe300708c72@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:53:25 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqKQb34zVNTzo9DLNiDwmWGxkrKezSOjwCUPAvgzUoLYjg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 21/01/2019 15:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Mike Rapoport
> 
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 07:35:11AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:19 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2019 11:57, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> # echo dump=0xffffffc021e00000 > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
>>>>> kmemleak: Object 0xffffffc021e00000 (size 2097152):
>>>>> kmemleak:   comm "swapper/0", pid 0, jiffies 4294892296
>>>>> kmemleak:   min_count = 0
>>>>> kmemleak:   count = 0
>>>>> kmemleak:   flags = 0x1
>>>>> kmemleak:   checksum = 0
>>>>> kmemleak:   backtrace:
>>>>>        kmemleak_alloc_phys+0x48/0x60
>>>>>        memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x8c/0xa4
>>>>>        memblock_alloc_base_nid+0x4c/0x60
>>>>>        __memblock_alloc_base+0x3c/0x4c
>>>>>        early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch+0x54/0xa4
>>>>>        fdt_init_reserved_mem+0x308/0x3ec
>>>>>        early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem+0x88/0xb0
>>>>>        arm64_memblock_init+0x1dc/0x254
>>>>>        setup_arch+0x1c8/0x4ec
>>>>>        start_kernel+0x84/0x44c
>>>>>        0xffffffffffffffff
>>>>
>>>> OK, so via the __va(phys) call in kmemleak_alloc_phys(), you end up with
>>>> the linear map address of a no-map reservation, which unsurprisingly
>>>> turns out not to be mapped. Is there a way to tell kmemleak that it
>>>> can't scan within a particular object?
>>>
>>> There was this patch posted[1]. I never got a reply, so it hasn't been applied.
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/995367/
>>
>> Thanks Rob, I wasn't aware of this patch (or I just missed it at the
>> time).
>>
>> I wonder whether kmemleak should simply remove ranges passed to
>> memblock_remove(), or at least mark them as no-scan.
> 
> Seems reasonable to me, but of course that impacts a lot of other
> cases. Maybe Mike R has some thoughts?

In particular, might that risk crippling kmemleak on EFI arm64 EFI, 
where we memblock_remove() the entire physical address space (but then 
rebuild the memblock list from scratch)?

FWIW, from the reserved-memory angle I think that patch looks reasonable 
as-is (modulo perhaps a kmemleak_no_scan_phys() wrapper for API 
symmetry). MEMBLOCK_NOMAP is already a massive pain in the bum and I'd 
really rather not introduce any more usage of it if at all possible.

Robin.