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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200803190354.GA1293087@gmail.com> <20200805110348.GA108872@zx2c4.com>
 <CAHk-=wiq+7sW3Lk5iQ0-zY5XWES4rSxK505vXsgFY=za88+RZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200806131034.GA2067370@gmail.com> <20200806185723.GA24304@suse.de>
 <CAHk-=wg7PHCUMD1xY=YCCeVHspAhw0YNEhyO3CnHfRPwsf6P8A@mail.gmail.com> <20200806192333.GB24304@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200806192333.GB24304@suse.de>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:42:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=win5DxMK-MH57NSrA+nVxF60MYR9RyArPX5NW_0yaBpoA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v5.9
To:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:23 PM Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's the best for now. My gut feeling is that the fault Jason is
> seeing didn't happen on a vmalloc address, but I can't prove that yet.

No, it's definitely fairly high in the vmalloc space. Look at the
faulting address:

   BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffe8ffffd00608

and the code sequence is this:

>   12: 48 8b 06              mov    (%rsi),%rax
>   15: 4c 8b 67 40          mov    0x40(%rdi),%r12
>   19: 49 89 c6              mov    %rax,%r14
>   1c: 45 30 f6              xor    %r14b,%r14b
>   1f: a8 04                test   $0x4,%al
>   21: b8 00 00 00 00        mov    $0x0,%eax
>   26: 4c 0f 44 f0          cmove  %rax,%r14

that admittedly odd sequence is get_work_pwq(work)

And then the faulting instruction is:

>   2a:* 49 8b 46 08          mov    0x8(%r14),%rax <-- trapping instruction

and this is the "->wq" dereference.

So it's the pwq->wq that traps, with 'pwq' being the trapping base
pointer, and clearly being in the vmalloc space.

I think pwq may a percpu allocation, so not _directly_ vmalloc().
Adding Tejun to the cc in case he can clarify ("No, silly Linus, it's
allocated here..").

                Linus