On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 03:45:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslo...@linux.ibm.com> > > If memory end is not aligned with the sparse memory section boundary, the > mapping of such a section is only partly initialized. This may lead to > VM_BUG_ON due to uninitialized struct pages access from test_pages_in_a_zone() > function triggered by memory_hotplug sysfs handlers. > > Here are the the panic examples: > CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGFLAGS=y > kernel parameter mem=2050M > -------------------------- > page:000003d082008000 is uninitialized and poisoned > page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(p)) > Call Trace: > ([<0000000000385b26>] test_pages_in_a_zone+0xde/0x160) > [<00000000008f15c4>] show_valid_zones+0x5c/0x190 > [<00000000008cf9c4>] dev_attr_show+0x34/0x70 > [<0000000000463ad0>] sysfs_kf_seq_show+0xc8/0x148 > [<00000000003e4194>] seq_read+0x204/0x480 > [<00000000003b53ea>] __vfs_read+0x32/0x178 > [<00000000003b55b2>] vfs_read+0x82/0x138 > [<00000000003b5be2>] ksys_read+0x5a/0xb0 > [<0000000000b86ba0>] system_call+0xdc/0x2d8 > Last Breaking-Event-Address: > [<0000000000385b26>] test_pages_in_a_zone+0xde/0x160 > Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception: panic_on_oops > > Fix this by checking whether the pfn to check is within the zone. > > [mho...@suse.com: separated this change from > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181105150401.97287-2-zaslo...@linux.ibm.com] > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslo...@linux.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>
Looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalva...@suse.de> > --- > mm/memory_hotplug.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c > index 07872789d778..7711d0e327b6 100644 > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c > @@ -1274,6 +1274,9 @@ int test_pages_in_a_zone(unsigned long start_pfn, > unsigned long end_pfn, > i++; > if (i == MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES || pfn + i >= end_pfn) > continue; > + /* Check if we got outside of the zone */ > + if (zone && !zone_spans_pfn(zone, pfn + i)) > + return 0; > page = pfn_to_page(pfn + i); Since we are already checking if the zone spans that pfn, is it safe to get rid of the below check? Or maybe not because we might have intersected zones? > if (zone && page_zone(page) != zone) > return 0; -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3
