Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 09:41:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+353be47c9ce21b68b7ed@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        <bp@alien8.de>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>, <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        <hpa@zytor.com>, <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        <luto@kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
        <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>, <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING in memtype_reserve
In-Reply-To: <87wo5l4ecm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2005090939210.4307-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 9 May 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 12:20:14AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> >> memtype_reserve failed: [mem 0xffffffffff000-0x00008fff], req write-back
> >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 7025 at arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c:589 memtype_reserve+0x69f/0x820 arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c:589
> >
> > So should memtype_reserve() not do a WARN if given invalid parameters as
> > it can be triggered by userspace requests?
> >
> > A normal "invalid request" debug line is probably all that is needed,
> > right?
> 
> I disagree. The callsite espcially if user space triggerable should not
> attempt to ask for a reservation where start > end:
> 
>   >> memtype_reserve failed: [mem 0xffffffffff000-0x00008fff], req write-back
> 
> The real question is which part of the call chain is responsible for
> this. That needs to be fixed.

What about all the other ways in which a reservation request could be
invalid?  The MM core already checks for these; what point is there in
duplicating these checks in many places higher up the call chain?

Alan Stern