From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Initialize cfqq->ioprio_class in cfq_get_queue() To: Alexander Potapenko , dvyukov@google.com, kcc@google.com, tahsin@google.com References: <20170123140643.32805-1-glider@google.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <5792bbb6-04e7-d3b2-b5cf-af628f4cac16@fb.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:30:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170123140643.32805-1-glider@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 List-ID: On 01/23/2017 07:06 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > KMSAN (KernelMemorySanitizer, a new error detection tool) reports use of > uninitialized memory in cfq_init_cfqq(): > > ================================================================== > BUG: KMSAN: use of unitialized memory > ... > Call Trace: > [< inline >] __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15 > [] dump_stack+0x157/0x1d0 lib/dump_stack.c:51 > [] kmsan_report+0x205/0x360 ??:? > [] __msan_warning+0x5b/0xb0 ??:? > [< inline >] cfq_init_cfqq block/cfq-iosched.c:3754 > [] cfq_get_queue+0xc80/0x14d0 block/cfq-iosched.c:3857 > ... > origin: > [] save_stack_trace+0x27/0x50 arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:67 > [] kmsan_internal_poison_shadow+0xab/0x150 ??:? > [] kmsan_poison_slab+0xbb/0x120 ??:? > [< inline >] allocate_slab mm/slub.c:1627 > [] new_slab+0x3af/0x4b0 mm/slub.c:1641 > [< inline >] new_slab_objects mm/slub.c:2407 > [] ___slab_alloc+0x323/0x4a0 mm/slub.c:2564 > [< inline >] __slab_alloc mm/slub.c:2606 > [< inline >] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:2669 > [] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1d2/0x1f0 mm/slub.c:2746 > [] cfq_get_queue+0x47d/0x14d0 block/cfq-iosched.c:3850 > ... > ================================================================== > (the line numbers are relative to 4.8-rc6, but the bug persists > upstream) > > The uninitialized struct cfq_queue is created by kmem_cache_alloc_node() > and then passed to cfq_init_cfqq(), which accesses cfqq->ioprio_class > before it's initialized. Patch looks fine to me, thanks. Is this a new warning? We don't seem to have changed this path in a while, yet I wonder why this is only surfacing now. -- Jens Axboe