On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:40 PM Sasha Levin <sas...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> From: Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslo...@linux.ibm.com>
>
> [ Upstream commit 2830bf6f05fb3e05bc4743274b806c821807a684 ]
>
> 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 page access from
> is_mem_section_removable() or test_pages_in_a_zone() function triggered
> by memory_hotplug sysfs handlers:
>
> Here are the the panic examples:
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y
> 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:
> ( test_pages_in_a_zone+0xde/0x160)
> show_valid_zones+0x5c/0x190
> dev_attr_show+0x34/0x70
> sysfs_kf_seq_show+0xc8/0x148
> seq_read+0x204/0x480
> __vfs_read+0x32/0x178
> vfs_read+0x82/0x138
> ksys_read+0x5a/0xb0
> system_call+0xdc/0x2d8
> Last Breaking-Event-Address:
> test_pages_in_a_zone+0xde/0x160
> Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception: panic_on_oops
>
> kernel parameter mem=3075M
> --------------------------
> page:000003d08300c000 is uninitialized and poisoned
> page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(p))
> Call Trace:
> ( is_mem_section_removable+0xb4/0x190)
> show_mem_removable+0x9a/0xd8
> dev_attr_show+0x34/0x70
> sysfs_kf_seq_show+0xc8/0x148
> seq_read+0x204/0x480
> __vfs_read+0x32/0x178
> vfs_read+0x82/0x138
> ksys_read+0x5a/0xb0
> system_call+0xdc/0x2d8
> Last Breaking-Event-Address:
> is_mem_section_removable+0xb4/0x190
> Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception: panic_on_oops
>
> Fix the problem by initializing the last memory section of each zone in
> memmap_init_zone() till the very end, even if it goes beyond the zone end.
>
> Michal said:
>
> : This has alwways been problem AFAIU. It just went unnoticed because we
> : have zeroed memmaps during allocation before f7f99100d8d9 ("mm: stop
> : zeroing memory during allocation in vmemmap") and so the above test
> : would simply skip these ranges as belonging to zone 0 or provided a
> : garbage.
> :
> : So I guess we do care for post f7f99100d8d9 kernels mostly and
> : therefore Fixes: f7f99100d8d9 ("mm: stop zeroing memory during
> : allocation in vmemmap")
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181212172712.34019-2-zaslo...@linux.ibm.com
> Fixes: f7f99100d8d9 ("mm: stop zeroing memory during allocation in vmemmap")
> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslo...@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schae...@de.ibm.com>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>
> Reported-by: Mikhail Gavrilov <mikhail.v.gavri...@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Mikhail Gavrilov <mikhail.v.gavri...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com>
> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.du...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pavel.tatas...@microsoft.com>
> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidef...@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
Wasn't this patch reverted in Linus's tree for causing a regression on
some platforms? If so I'm not sure we should pull this in as a
candidate for stable should we, or am I missing something?
