Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-137773-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0000000000009db84e0615a73698@google.com> <20240409164627.b4803e09c81c01ccb6f55601@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240409164627.b4803e09c81c01ccb6f55601@linux-foundation.org>
From: "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:32:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAa6QmQ-fSNHu0VWQod+Cz89zOtQ9Ayet_2OEQsrp2zeCfos3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] general protection fault in hpage_collapse_scan_file
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+57adb2a4b9d206521bc2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:46=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation=
org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:16:20 -0700 syzbot <syzbot+57adb2a4b9d206521bc2@sy=
zkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > syzbot found the following issue on:
> >
> > HEAD commit:    8568bb2ccc27 Add linux-next specific files for 20240405
> > git tree:       linux-next
> > console+strace: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=3D152f4805180=
000
> > kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=3D48ca5acf8d2=
eb3bc
> > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3D57adb2a4b9d20=
6521bc2
> > compiler:       Debian clang version 15.0.6, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for D=
ebian) 2.40
> > syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=3D1268258d1=
80000
> > C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=3D1256598d180=
000
>
> Help.  From a quick look this seems to be claiming that collapse_file()
> got to
>
>         VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio), folio);
>
> with folio=3D=3DNULL, but the code look solid regarding this.
>
> Given that we have a reproducer, can we expect the bot to perform a
> bisection for us?
>

I often don't see a successful automatic bisect, even with
reproducers. Hit or miss. I will take a closer look tomorrow -- the
reproducer doesn't look to be doing anything crazy.

Thanks,
Zach