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;
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:10:41 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [srcu] a365bb5f6e: leaking_addresses.proc.___srcu_struct_ptrs.
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190408135610.GN11264@shao2-debian>
 <20190408143037.GL14111@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190408145750.GO11264@shao2-debian>
 <20190408152112.GM14111@linux.ibm.com>
 <118257214.1376.1554743216233.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <118257214.1376.1554743216233.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190408171041.GQ14111@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 01:06:56PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:21 AM, paulmck paulmck@linux.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:57:50PM +0800, Rong Chen wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:30:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:56:10PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> > > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-7):
> >> > > 
> >> > > commit: a365bb5f6eafb220a1448674054b05c250829313 ("srcu: Allocate per-CPU data
> >> > > for DEFINE_SRCU() in modules")
> >> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
> >> > > tmp.2019.04.07a
> >> > > 
> >> > > in testcase: leaking_addresses
> >> > > with following parameters:
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 2G
> >> > > 
> >> > > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire
> >> > > log/backtrace):
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> >> > > |                                                 | a44a55abae | a365bb5f6e |
> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> >> > > | boot_successes                                  | 0          | 3          |
> >> > > | boot_failures                                   | 4          | 6          |
> >> > > | BUG:kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage | 4          | 6          |
> >> > > | leaking_addresses.proc.___srcu_struct_ptrs.     | 0          | 6          |
> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> >> > 
> >> > Please help me out here.  Without this commit, the kernel never succeeds
> >> > in booting, but with it the kernel sometimes succeeds in booting?  Or am
> >> > I misinterpreting the above table?
> >> > 
> >> > 							Thanx, Paul
> >> 
> >> Hi Paul,
> >> 
> >> The message "kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage" is from 0day,
> >> leaking addresses generated many dmesgs, so 0day thought some bootings may
> >> failed.
> > 
> [...]
> >> > 
> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.POLY] 0xffffffffc0498360
> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst32.byteshift_table] 0xffffffffc03f50f0
> >> > > [19 __bug_table] 0xffffffffc02be184
> >> > > [2 __tracepoints_ptrs] 0xffffffffc02f1cd0
> >> > > [15 .smp_locks] 0xffffffffc042b2cc
> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.enc] 0xffffffffc0498420
> >> > > [11 __ksymtab_gpl] 0xffffffffc042b028
> >> > > [8 __ex_table] 0xffffffffc04f13f4
> >> > > [1 .init.rodata] 0xffffffffc0316000
> >> > > [36 .note.gnu.build-id] 0xffffffffc03ed000
> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.dec] 0xffffffffc0498410
> >> > > [16 .parainstructions] 0xffffffffc03ed940
> >> > > [8 .text..refcount] 0xffffffffc04e2aaa
> >> > > [36 .gnu.linkonce.this_module] 0xffffffffc03f12c0
> >> > > [2 __bpf_raw_tp_map] 0xffffffffc03054a0
> >> > > [30 .orc_unwind_ip] 0xffffffffc03ee9f9
> >> > > [8 .altinstr_replacement] 0xffffffffc0497372
> >> > > [26 .rodata.str1.8] 0xffffffffc03ed1f0
> >> > > [11 __verbose] 0xffffffffc05c9398
> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.TWOONE] 0xffffffffc0498380
> >> > > [1 uevent] KEY=402000000 3803078f800d001 feffffdfffefffff fffffffffffffffe
> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.ONE] 0xffffffffc04983e0
> >> > > [8 .altinstructions] 0xffffffffc0498430
> >> > > [36 modules] crct10dif_pclmul 16384 1 - Live 0xffffffffc03f4000
> >> > > [1 ___srcu_struct_ptrs] 0xffffffffc03840d0
> >> > > 
> 
> This list of "leaked" memory seems to include the __tracepoint_ptrs
> as well. So at least you seem to have the same behavior as the tracepoint
> code, which was your source of inspiration for this implementation,
> which is a good start.
> 
> So the remaining question is: is this memory allocated for module sections
> really leaked for each module, or is it an issue with memory allocation
> tracking ?

Thank you, Mathieu!

Also, is there some way to put this read-only (OK, relocated-only)
memory in with the module .text segment?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul