On Thu 26-03-20 11:16:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 26-03-20 15:26:22, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > On 3/26/20 3:10 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 25-03-20 08:49:14, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > > Fixes the below crash
> > > >
> > > > BUG: Kernel NULL pointer dereference on read at 0x00000000
> > > > Faulting instruction address: 0xc000000000c3447c
> > > > Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
> > > > LE PAGE_SIZE=64K MMU=Hash SMP NR_CPUS=2048 NUMA pSeries
> > > > CPU: 11 PID: 7519 Comm: lt-ndctl Not tainted 5.6.0-rc7-autotest #1
> > > > ...
> > > > NIP [c000000000c3447c] vmemmap_populated+0x98/0xc0
> > > > LR [c000000000088354] vmemmap_free+0x144/0x320
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > > section_deactivate+0x220/0x240
> > >
> > > It would be great to match this to the specific source code.
> >
> > The crash is due to NULL dereference at
> >
> > test_bit(idx, ms->usage->subsection_map); due to ms->usage = NULL;
>
> It would be nice to call that out here as well
>
> [...]
> > > Why do we have to free usage before deactivaing section memmap? Now that
> > > we have a late section_mem_map reset shouldn't we tear down the usage in
> > > the same branch?
> > >
> >
> > We still need to make the section invalid before we call into
> > depopulate_section_memmap(). Because architecture like powerpc can share
> > vmemmap area across sections (16MB mapping of vmemmap area) and we use
> > vmemmap_popluated() to make that decision.
>
> This should be noted in a comment as well.
>
> > > > Fixes: d41e2f3bd546 ("mm/hotplug: fix hot remove failure in
> > > > SPARSEMEM|!VMEMMAP case")
> > > > Cc: Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com>
> > > > Reported-by: Sachin Sant <sach...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/sparse.c | 2 ++
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> > > > index aadb7298dcef..3012d1f3771a 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > > > @@ -781,6 +781,8 @@ static void section_deactivate(unsigned long pfn,
> > > > unsigned long nr_pages,
> > > > ms->usage = NULL;
> > > > }
> > > > memmap = sparse_decode_mem_map(ms->section_mem_map,
> > > > section_nr);
> > > > + /* Mark the section invalid */
> > > > + ms->section_mem_map &= ~SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP;
> > >
> > > Btw. this comment is not really helping at all.
> >
> > That is marking the section invalid so that
> >
> > static inline int valid_section(struct mem_section *section)
> > {
> > return (section && (section->section_mem_map & SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP));
> > }
> >
> >
> > returns false.
>
> Yes that is obvious once you are clear where to look. I was really
> hoping for a comment that would simply point you to the right
> direcection without chasing SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP usage. This code is
> subtle and useful comments, even when they state something that is
> obvious to you _right_now_, can be really helpful.
Btw. forgot to add. With the improved comment feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
