Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-84812-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <84d7cd03-1cf8-401a-8edf-2524db0bd6d5@oppo.com>
 <CAGsJ_4w_itxmZR7ytu7HnptQNZQzM-vAJhE_zSZrTAH1iqBV6g@mail.gmail.com> <fd71a174-e4cf-425c-a619-0d7c15cd91f7@oppo.com>
In-Reply-To: <fd71a174-e4cf-425c-a619-0d7c15cd91f7@oppo.com>
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:09:42 +1300
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4xpJ2FtLRxJT1fORHXzEiajiUJ6q_Pz8pwjYmVOmnaP5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Fix return value check for vb_alloc
To: =?UTF-8?B?5YiY5rW36b6ZKExhb0xpdSk=?= <liuhailong@oppo.com>
Cc: "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "urezki@gmail.com" <urezki@gmail.com>, 
	"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>, "lstoakes@gmail.com" <lstoakes@gmail.com>, 
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:02=E2=80=AFPM =E5=88=98=E6=B5=B7=E9=BE=99(LaoLiu=
) <liuhailong@oppo.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024/2/28 17:34, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:51=E2=80=AFPM =E5=88=98=E6=B5=B7=E9=BE=99(Lao=
Liu) <liuhailong@oppo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If vm_map_ram(page, 0, 0) would cause panic by vmap_pages_range_noflus=
h, so
> >> change IS_ERR to IS_ERR_OR_NULL to fix this.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hailong.Liu <liuhailong@oppo.com>
> >> ---
> >>  mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> index d12a17fc0c17..109732006cf7 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> @@ -2387,7 +2387,7 @@ void *vm_map_ram(struct page **pages, unsigned i=
nt
> >> count, int node)
> >>
> >>         if (likely(count <=3D VMAP_MAX_ALLOC)) {
> >>                 mem =3D vb_alloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> -               if (IS_ERR(mem))
> >> +               if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mem))
> >
> > it seems the only case for vb_alloc to return NULL is size =3D 0, isn't
> > it a bug of
> > caller?
> vb_alloc had already checked the size =3D=3D 0, so it should be return NU=
LL
> to caller or not panic here.
>
> In fact, we encounter z_erofs_lz4_decompress issue.
>
> [54032.383633][T25392]  vmap_pages_range_noflush+0x790/0x8f8
> [54032.383637][T25392]  vm_map_ram+0x1c8/0x10b0
> [54032.383642][T25392]  z_erofs_lz4_decompress+0x60/0x1e8
> [54032.383648][T25392]  z_erofs_decompress_pcluster+0x624/0x9fc
> [54032.383653][T25392]  z_erofs_decompress_kickoff+0x18c/0x224
> [54032.383658][T25392]  z_erofs_decompressqueue_endio+0x1a8/0x1e0
> [54032.383663][T25392]  bio_endio+0x188/0x47c
> [54032.383667][T25392]  clone_endio+0x1a0/0x550
> [54032.383674][T25392]  bio_endio+0x14c/0x47c
> [54032.383678][T25392]  verity_work.60258+0x7c/0x13c
> [54032.383682][T25392]  process_one_work+0x1b8/0xa98
> [54032.383687][T25392]  worker_thread+0x160/0x6c0
> [54032.383691][T25392]  kthread+0x15c/0x1d0
> [54032.383696][T25392]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>
> z_erofs_lz4_decompress has checked the return value, so it's reasonable
> to return NULL if size =3D=3D 0.

I agree. but there is no reason to activate a WARN_ON in vb_alloc as
obviously it doesn't like it. so fix it earlier.

I even feel z_erofs_lz4_decompress is a better place than vm_map_ram
according to your description. but at least vm_map_ram is better than
checking a vb_alloc's ret after it gives a parameter obviously hated and
causes complaints.

>
> Brs,
> Hailong.
> >
> >>                         return NULL;
> >>                 addr =3D (unsigned long)mem;
> >>         } else {
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >

Thanks
Barry