Re: [PATCH] mm: fix invalid node in alloc_migrate_target()

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 03/29/2016 11:52 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 03/26/2016 06:31 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2016/3/26 3:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:56:04 +0800 Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is incorrect to use next_node to find a target node, it will
>>>> return MAX_NUMNODES or invalid node. This will lead to crash in
>>>> buddy system allocation.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>> @@ -289,11 +289,11 @@ struct page *alloc_migrate_target(struct page *page, unsigned long private,
>>>>    	 * now as a simple work-around, we use the next node for destination.
>>>>    	 */
>>>>    	if (PageHuge(page)) {
>>>> -		nodemask_t src = nodemask_of_node(page_to_nid(page));
>>>> -		nodemask_t dst;
>>>> -		nodes_complement(dst, src);
>>>> +		int node = next_online_node(page_to_nid(page));
>>>> +		if (node == MAX_NUMNODES)
>>>> +			node = first_online_node;
>>>>    		return alloc_huge_page_node(page_hstate(compound_head(page)),
>>>> -					    next_node(page_to_nid(page), dst));
>>>> +					    node);
>>>>    	}
>>>>
>>>>    	if (PageHighMem(page))
>>>
>>> Indeed.  Can you tell us more about this circumstances under which the
>>> kernel will crash?  I need to decide which kernel version(s) need the
>>> patch, but the changelog doesn't contain the info needed to make this
>>> decision (it should).
>>>
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> I read the code v4.4, and find the following path maybe trigger the bug.
>>
>> alloc_migrate_target()
>> 	alloc_huge_page_node()  // the node may be offline or MAX_NUMNODES
>> 		__alloc_buddy_huge_page_no_mpol()
>> 			__alloc_buddy_huge_page()
>> 				__hugetlb_alloc_buddy_huge_page()
>
> The code in this functions seems to come from 099730d67417d ("mm,
> hugetlb: use memory policy when available") by Dave Hansen (adding to
> CC), which was indeed merged in 4.4-rc1.
>
> However, alloc_pages_node() is only called in the block guarded by:
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) || !vma) {
>
> The rather weird "!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA)" part comes from immediate
> followup commit e0ec90ee7e6f ("mm, hugetlbfs: optimize when NUMA=n")
>
> So I doubt the code path here can actually happen. But it's fragile and
> confusing nevertheless.

Ah, so there's actually a dangerous path:
alloc_huge_page_node()
     dequeue_huge_page_node()
         list_for_each_entry(page, &h->hugepage_freelists[nid], lru)

hugepage_freelists is MAX_NUMNODES sized, so when nid is MAX_NUMNODES, 
we access past it.

However, look closer at how nid is obtained in alloc_migrate_target():

nodemask_t src = nodemask_of_node(page_to_nid(page));
nodemask_t dst;
nodes_complement(dst, src);

nid = next_node(page_to_nid(page), dst)

for nid to be MAX_NUMNODES, the original page has to be on node 
MAX_NUMNODES-1, otherwise the complement part means we hit the very next 
bit which is set.

It's actually a rather obfuscated way of doing:

nid = page_to_nid(page) + 1;

In that case the problem is in commit c8721bbbdd36 ("mm: memory-hotplug: 
enable memory hotplug to handle hugepage") from 3.12 and will likely 
affect only people that tune down MAX_NUMNODES to match their machine.

>> 					alloc_pages_node()
>> 						__alloc_pages_node()
>> 							VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
>> 							VM_WARN_ON(!node_online(nid));
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xishi Qiu
>>
>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>