Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 9 Jun 2022 22:16:47 +0000
In-Reply-To: <YqJulJzLKVQ6xn88@carbon>
Message-Id: <20220609221647.lqxljj4wlb6mcuvr@google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+G9fYv7fESqpGoeKmHoJsst6wfRNMi2wQLGm+PsjbLDuDjdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+G9fYsJThWFAxXTbAcJmjshx+oYxVVd+gMM680hS0X1z37+FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqItYKEIvsw4Yzjx@carbon> <CALvZod6ojDd8Bc0VcyFEk-ZrdkFezvQPUvbGg3wyzae+NOp_4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqI0OYwNzxGo4XRo@carbon> <20220609191221.rv3lqbhipnvvzt67@google.com> <YqJulJzLKVQ6xn88@carbon>
Subject: Re: [next] arm64: boot failed - next-20220606
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Raghuram Thammiraju <raghuram.thammiraju@arm.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org>,
        Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 03:05:08PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 07:12:21PM +0000, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:56:09AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:47:35AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:27 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_obj(void *p)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       struct folio *folio;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > > > > +               return NULL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (unlikely(is_vmalloc_addr(p)))
> > > > > +               folio = page_folio(vmalloc_to_page(p));
> > > > 
> > > > Do we need to check for NULL from vmalloc_to_page(p)?
> > > 
> > > Idk, can it realistically return NULL after is_vmalloc_addr() returned true?
> > > I would be surprised, but maybe I'm missing something.
> > 
> > is_vmalloc_addr() is simply checking the range and some buggy caller can
> > provide an unmapped address within the range. Maybe VM_BUG_ON() should
> > be good enough (though no strong opinion either way).
> 
> No strong opinion here as well, but I think we don't have to be too defensive
> here. Actually we'll know anyway, unlikely a null pointer dereference will be
> unnoticed. And it's not different to calling mem_cgroup_from_obj() with some
> random invalid address now.
> 

Sounds good. You can add my ack when you send the official version of
the patch.