Hi Alex, thanks for the patch,
-----Original Message----- > Alexander Egorenkov <egore...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > > > This change makes __exclude_unnecessary_pages() more robust by > > verifying that the order of a free page is valid before computing the size > > of its memory block in the buddy system. > > > > The order of a free page cannot be larger than (MAX_ORDER - 1) because > > the array 'zone.free_area' is of size MAX_ORDER. > > > > This situation is reproducible with some s390x dumps: > > > > __exclude_unnecessary_pages: Invalid free page order: pfn=2690c0, order=52, > > max order=8 > > > > References: > > - > > https://listman.redhat.com/archives/crash-utility/2021-September/009204.html > > - https://www.kernel.org/doc/gorman/html/understand/understand009.html > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Egorenkov <egore...@linux.ibm.com> > > --- > > makedumpfile.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c > > index 2ef345879524..56aa026e7b34 100644 > > --- a/makedumpfile.c > > +++ b/makedumpfile.c > > @@ -6457,6 +6457,12 @@ __exclude_unnecessary_pages(unsigned long mem_map, > > else if ((info->dump_level & DL_EXCLUDE_FREE) > > && info->page_is_buddy > > && info->page_is_buddy(flags, _mapcount, private, _count)) { > > + if (private >= ARRAY_LENGTH(zone.free_area)) { > > + ERRMSG("Invalid free page order: pfn=%llx, > > order=%lu, max order=%lu\n", > > + pfn, private, > > ARRAY_LENGTH(zone.free_area) - 1); > > + free(page_cache); > > + return FALSE; > > + } > > nr_pages = 1 << private; > > pfn_counter = &pfn_free; > > } > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > kexec mailing list > > kexec@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > > I found out when this can happen. > > If e.g. a driver calls free_pages() and gives an order > max page order, > then __free_one_page() stores the given invalid page order in the > 'private' member of struct page and gives it back to the buddy > allocator. > > This is what actually happened in the dump i used to reproduce this issue > with makedumpfile. Good catch, though I could not reproduce it so far.. but I wonder whether we have no other choice than returning FALSE? in other words, can't we skip (include) the invalid page with a warning message? As I said before, I think that capturing more pages than expected will be better than not capturing a dump, and that is "robust" against unexpected values. Thanks, Kazu _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
