Received: by 2002:a6b:fb09:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id h9csp1087564iog; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 21:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tzipX1WjBiPFWn46H2R5FziRcd8TLbQof2pY3YfmJ9LR/Ddx2OTj15UwyJKFFXoJuWeJPJ X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3ec2:b0:1e8:9ca4:8d55 with SMTP id rm2-20020a17090b3ec200b001e89ca48d55mr2377871pjb.123.1655180763619; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 21:26:03 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1655180763; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gvLCU+1YREOt1Ym9Pmc1dJpMMbHOyg0QljosR1SLcJ7tjyJBRi4P8lzWxBc7sBiCR9 cI7j5GRO90TzCiXi8APKgXotbMqzBJvQTRLyZg9GXvcr77dy2X2/lHkz94EScydCL92N yNyIQrvBg6cGOmE4CJw2G19sBBJSr+boYMpPngR+IlGWW7m6XbgtOX5m5CsPKKyySOWz 86IcwcZk4lDOXWJWa40NzuAW7IWZSWXFM/LoUjEodB1BLUg3NfsQ0WlSWG9ZjL9XLM05 z5CgkEW7EyWyUpNQVOgjKX5jou4ElGPDScAmiaMpT8wdwwEy9YKipRtX51wvEvItvO/x +H6A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to :subject; bh=LMdJ/Vh7iDEi4vDOJiyZXEy2LtyjSCRkZdLeuE4dXyE=; b=Op0OmZwhSdasqUuyds4LTF90RkUamqoQ8311wrEXuL/fYRLJq2adRjyYpUq2USnRbh dTee0YyJF14tQTrnI4NI2ja1l8WlvbK56Ak2bdM97HBRyc9+67hyKq3IvCNRLkp1fIH2 RxNv/yqcbTqCppl4vmKZ5oQ5srixJ371MKrpbl4+OpmCkkDkCedWTk4TBO6mXPS8We8L 24E8gTUd5dpqiLy7m/TtuJcAURyGMtmD5s2Qw6hn8dW94G8SVATO07t1xdSqLgWz6Dfc iHpPBgxyZFoKJppGGTPx/x599mIxB7NlkfjaTfa1kYu1/VI49GT1AAyEp1Re85sWJlqj uGdw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i8-20020a17090adc0800b001e858850fbcsi10472129pjv.50.2022.06.13.21.25.50; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 21:26:03 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235061AbiFND0j (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 23:26:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53972 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232850AbiFND0h (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 23:26:37 -0400 Received: from out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EDD82E9EB; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:26:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R131e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=ay29a033018046051;MF=xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=14;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0VGLDXru_1655177190; Received: from B-LB6YLVDL-0141.local(mailfrom:xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0VGLDXru_1655177190) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:26:31 +0800 Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] mm: page_alloc: validate buddy before check the migratetype To: Guo Ren , Zi Yan Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Linux-MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable@vger.kernel.org, huanyi.xj@alibaba-inc.com, zjb194813@alibaba-inc.com, tianhu.hh@alibaba-inc.com, Hanjun Guo , Joonsoo Kim , Laura Abbott References: <20220613131046.3009889-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com> <0262A4FB-5A9B-47D3-8F1A-995509F56279@nvidia.com> <435B45C3-E6A5-43B2-A5A2-318C748691FC@nvidia.com> From: Xianting Tian Message-ID: <28bae73b-2fa8-c465-2927-629230eec4ea@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:26:29 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thanks Zi Yan, Guo Ren for the detailed discussion. The commit message need to be improved, and I will send the patches soon. 在 2022/6/14 上午9:19, Guo Ren 写道: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:14 AM Zi Yan wrote: >> On 13 Jun 2022, at 19:47, Guo Ren wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:49 AM Zi Yan wrote: >>>> On 13 Jun 2022, at 12:32, Guo Ren wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:23 PM Zi Yan wrote: >>>>>> Hi Xianting, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 Jun 2022, at 9:10, Xianting Tian wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Commit 787af64d05cd ("mm: page_alloc: validate buddy before check its migratetype.") >>>>>>> added buddy check code. But unfortunately, this fix isn't backported to >>>>>>> linux-5.17.y and the former stable branches. The reason is it added wrong >>>>>>> fixes message: >>>>>>> Fixes: 1dd214b8f21c ("mm: page_alloc: avoid merging non-fallbackable >>>>>>> pageblocks with others") >>>>>> No, the Fixes tag is right. The commit above does need to validate buddy. >>>>> I think Xianting is right. The “Fixes:" tag is not accurate and the >>>>> page_is_buddy() is necessary here. >>>>> >>>>> This patch could be applied to the early version of the stable tree >>>>> (eg: Linux-5.10.y, not the master tree) >>>> This is quite misleading. Commit 787af64d05cd applies does not mean it is >>>> intended to fix the preexisting bug. Also it does not apply cleanly >>>> to commit d9dddbf55667, there is a clear indentation mismatch. At best, >>>> you can say the way of 787af64d05cd fixing 1dd214b8f21c also fixes d9dddbf55667. >>>> There is no way you can apply 787af64d05cd to earlier trees and call it a day. >>>> >>>> You can mention 787af64d05cd that it fixes a bug in 1dd214b8f21c and there is >>>> a similar bug in d9dddbf55667 that can be fixed in a similar way too. Saying >>>> the fixes message is wrong just misleads people, making them think there is >>>> no bug in 1dd214b8f21c. We need to be clear about this. >>> First, d9dddbf55667 is earlier than 1dd214b8f21c in Linus tree. The >>> origin fixes could cover the Linux-5.0.y tree if they give the >>> accurate commit number and that is the cause we want to point out. >> Yes, I got that d9dddbf55667 is earlier and commit 787af64d05cd fixes >> the issue introduced by d9dddbf55667. But my point is that 787af64d05cd >> is not intended to fix d9dddbf55667 and saying it has a wrong fixes >> message is misleading. This is the point I want to make. >> >>> Second, if the patch is for d9dddbf55667 then it could cover any tree >>> in the stable repo. Actually, we only know Linux-5.10.y has the >>> problem. >> But it is not and does not apply to d9dddbf55667 cleanly. >> >>> Maybe, Gregkh could help to direct us on how to deal with the issue: >>> (Fixup a bug which only belongs to the former stable branch.) >>> >> I think you just need to send this patch without saying “commit >> 787af64d05cd fixes message is wrong” would be a good start. You also >> need extra fix to mm/page_isolation.c for kernels between 5.15 and 5.17 >> (inclusive). So there will need to be two patches: >> >> 1) your patch to stable tree prior to 5.15 and >> >> 2) your patch with an additional mm/page_isolation.c fix to stable tree >> between 5.15 and 5.17. >> >>>> Also, you will need to fix the mm/page_isolation.c code too to make this patch >>>> complete, unless you can show that PFN=0x1000 is never going to be encountered >>>> in the mm/page_isolation.c code I mentioned below. >>> No, we needn't fix mm/page_isolation.c in linux-5.10.y, because it had >>> pfn_valid_within(buddy_pfn) check after __find_buddy_pfn() to prevent >>> buddy_pfn=0. >>> The root cause comes from __find_buddy_pfn(): >>> return page_pfn ^ (1 << order); >> Right. But pfn_valid_within() was removed since 5.15. So your fix is >> required for kernels between 5.15 and 5.17 (inclusive). >> >>> When page_pfn is the same as the order size, it will return the >>> previous buddy not the next. That is the only exception for this >>> algorithm, right? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In fact, the bug is a very long time to reproduce and is not easy to >>> debug, so we want to contribute it to the community to prevent other >>> guys from wasting time. Although there is no new patch at all. >> Thanks for your reporting and sending out the patch. I really >> appreciate it. We definitely need your inputs. Throughout the email >> thread, I am trying to help you clarify the bug and how to fix it >> properly: >> >> 1. The commit 787af64d05cd does not apply cleanly to commits >> d9dddbf55667, meaning you cannot just cherry-pick that commit to >> fix the issue. That is why we need your patch to fix the issue. >> And saying it has a wrong fixes message in this patch’s git log is >> misleading. > Okay, seems we need to send some patches for the different stable > branches separately. > >> 2. For kernels between 5.15 and 5.17 (inclusive), an additional fix >> to mm/page_isolation.c is also needed, since pfn_valid_within() was >> removed since 5.15 and the issue can appear during page isolation. > Good point and we would take care of that. > >> 3. For kernels before 5.15, this patch will apply. > Thx > >>>>>>> Actually, this issue is involved by commit: >>>>>>> commit d9dddbf55667 ("mm/page_alloc: prevent merging between isolated and other pageblocks") >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For RISC-V arch, the first 2M is reserved for sbi, so the start PFN is 512, >>>>>>> but it got buddy PFN 0 for PFN 0x2000: >>>>>>> 0 = 0x2000 ^ (1 << 12) >>>>>>> With the illegal buddy PFN 0, it got an illegal buddy page, which caused >>>>>>> crash in __get_pfnblock_flags_mask(). >>>>>> It seems that the RISC-V arch reveals a similar bug from d9dddbf55667. >>>>>> Basically, this bug will only happen when PFN=0x2000 is merging up and >>>>>> there are some isolated pageblocks. >>>>> Not PFN=0x2000, it's PFN=0x1000, I guess. >>>>> >>>>> RISC-V's first 2MB RAM could reserve for opensbi, so it would have >>>>> riscv_pfn_base=512 and mem_map began with 512th PFN when >>>>> CONFIG_FLATMEM=y. >>>>> (Also, csky has the same issue: a non-zero pfn_base in some scenarios.) >>>>> >>>>> But __find_buddy_pfn algorithm thinks the start address is 0, it could >>>>> get 0 pfn or less than the pfn_base value. We need another check to >>>>> prevent that. >>>>> >>>>>> BTW, what does first reserved 2MB imply? All 4KB pages from first 2MB are >>>>>> set to PageReserved? >>>>>> >>>>>>> With the patch, it can avoid the calling of get_pageblock_migratetype() if >>>>>>> it isn't buddy page. >>>>>> You might miss the __find_buddy_pfn() caller in unset_migratetype_isolate() >>>>>> from mm/page_isolation.c, if you are talking about linux-5.17.y and former >>>>>> version. There, page_is_buddy() is also not called and is_migrate_isolate_page() >>>>>> is called, which calls get_pageblock_migratetype() too. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: d9dddbf55667 ("mm/page_alloc: prevent merging between isolated and other pageblocks") >>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> Reported-by: zjb194813@alibaba-inc.com >>>>>>> Reported-by: tianhu.hh@alibaba-inc.com >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xianting Tian >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c >>>>>>> index b1caa1c6c887..5b423caa68fd 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c >>>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c >>>>>>> @@ -1129,6 +1129,9 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> buddy_pfn = __find_buddy_pfn(pfn, order); >>>>>>> buddy = page + (buddy_pfn - pfn); >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (!page_is_buddy(page, buddy, order)) >>>>>>> + goto done_merging; >>>>>>> buddy_mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(buddy); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if (migratetype != buddy_mt >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 2.17.1 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Yan, Zi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> Guo Ren >>>>> >>>>> ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/ >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Yan, Zi >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best Regards >>> Guo Ren >>> >>> ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/ >> -- >> Best Regards, >> Yan, Zi > >