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;
Sender: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 09:47:30 -0700
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Cc:     umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
Subject: Re: qemu-arm: zram: mkfs.ext4 : Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
 dereference at virtual address 00000140
Message-ID: <YqoNIgqYl8lWRFTZ@google.com>
References: <CA+G9fYsjn0zySHU4YYNJWAgkABuJuKtHty7ELHmN-+30VYgCDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yp/kpPA7GdbArXDo@google.com>
 <YqAL+HeZDk5Wug28@google.com>
 <YqAMmTiwcyS3Ttla@google.com>
 <YqANP1K/6oRNCUKZ@google.com>
 <YqBRZcsfrRMZXMCC@google.com>
 <CA+G9fYvjpCOcTVdpnHTOWaf3KcDeTM3Njn_NnXvU37ppoHH5uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqbtH9F47dkZghJ7@google.com>
 <Yqdqfz4Ycbg33k1R@google.com>
 <Yqf+PC+cKePAsaNI@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yqf+PC+cKePAsaNI@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:19:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (22/06/13 09:49), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Many thanks for the tests.
> > > 
> > > Quite honestly I was hoping that the patch would not help :) Well, ok,
> > > we now know that it's mapping area lock and the lockdep part of its
> > > memory is zero-ed out. The question is - "why?" It really should not
> > > be zeroed out.
> > 
> > Ccing Mike and Sebastian who are author/expert of the culprit patch
> > 
> > Naresh found zsmalloc crashed on the testing [1] and confirmed
> > that Sergey's patch[2] fixed the problem.
> > However, I don't understand why we need reinit the local_lock
> > on cpu_up handler[3].
> > 
> > Could you guys shed some light?
> 
> My guess is that it's either something very specific to Naresh's arch/config
> or a bug somewhere, which memset() per-CPU memory. Not sure how to track it
> down. KASAN maybe?
> 
> We certainly don't expect that
> 
> 	static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mapping_area, zs_map_area) = {
> 	        .lock   = INIT_LOCAL_LOCK(lock),
> 	};
> 
> would produce un-initialized dep_map. So I guess we start off with a
> valid per-CPU lock, but then it somehow gets zeroed-out.

Yes, I don't think we need to reinitialize the local_lock.

Naresh, we believe the patch Sergey provided for the test
was just band aid to hide the problem.

Could you please try to bisect it?