Re: [linus:master] [mm] efa7df3e3b: kernel_BUG_at_include/linux/page_ref.h

David Hildenbrand
2024-05-31T17:46:46Z

On 31.05.24 18:50, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 1:24 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> kernel test robot noticed "kernel_BUG_at_include/linux/page_ref.h" on:
>>
>> commit: efa7df3e3bb5da8e6abbe37727417f32a37fba47 ("mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP boundaries")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>
>> [test failed on linus/master e0cce98fe279b64f4a7d81b7f5c3a23d80b92fbc]
>> [test failed on linux-next/master 6dc544b66971c7f9909ff038b62149105272d26a]
>>
>> in testcase: trinity
>> version: trinity-x86_64-6a17c218-1_20240527
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> runtime: 300s
>> group: group-00
>> nr_groups: 5
>>
>>
>>
>> compiler: gcc-13
>> test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 16G
>>
>> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>>
>>
>> we noticed the issue does not always happen. 34 times out of 50 runs as below.
>> the parent is clean.
>>
>> 1803d0c5ee1a3bbe efa7df3e3bb5da8e6abbe377274
>> ---------------- ---------------------------
>> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
>> | | |
>> :50 68% 34:50 dmesg.Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception
>> :50 68% 34:50 dmesg.RIP:try_get_folio
>> :50 68% 34:50 dmesg.invalid_opcode:#[##]
>> :50 68% 34:50 dmesg.kernel_BUG_at_include/linux/page_ref.h
>>
>>
>>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202405311534.86cd4043-lkp@intel.com
>>
>>
>> [ 275.267158][ T4335] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [ 275.267949][ T4335] kernel BUG at include/linux/page_ref.h:275!
>> [ 275.268526][ T4335] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] KASAN PTI
>> [ 275.269001][ T4335] CPU: 0 PID: 4335 Comm: trinity-c3 Not tainted 6.7.0-rc4-00061-gefa7df3e3bb5 #1
>> [ 275.269787][ T4335] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014
>> [ 275.270679][ T4335] RIP: 0010:try_get_folio (include/linux/page_ref.h:275 (discriminator 3) mm/gup.c:79 (discriminator 3))
>> [ 275.271159][ T4335] Code: c3 cc cc cc cc 44 89 e6 48 89 df e8 e4 54 11 00 eb ae 90 0f 0b 90 31 db eb d5 9c 58 0f 1f 40 00 f6 c4 02 0f 84 46 ff ff ff 90 <0f> 0b 48 c7 c6 a0 54 d2 87 48 89 df e8 a9 e9 ff ff 90 0f 0b be 04
>
> If I read this BUG correctly, it is:
>
> VM_BUG_ON(!in_atomic() && !irqs_disabled());
>

Yes, that seems to be the one.

> try_grab_folio() actually assumes it is in an atomic context (irq
> disabled or preempt disabled) for this call path. This is achieved by
> disabling irq in gup fast or calling it in rcu critical section in
> page cache lookup path

try_grab_folio()->try_get_folio()->folio_ref_try_add_rcu()

Is called (mm-unstable) from:

(1) gup_fast function, here IRQs are disable
(2) gup_hugepte(), possibly problematic
(3) memfd_pin_folios(), possibly problematic
(4) __get_user_pages(), likely problematic

(1) should be fine.

(2) is possibly problematic on the !fast path. If so, due to commit
a12083d721d7 ("mm/gup: handle hugepd for follow_page()") ? CCing Peter.

(3) is possibly wrong. CCing Vivek.

(4) is what we hit here

>
> And try_grab_folio() is used when the folio is a large folio. The

We come via process_vm_rw()->pin_user_pages_remote()->__get_user_pages()->try_grab_folio()

That code was added in

commit 57edfcfd3419b4799353d8cbd6ce49da075cfdbd
Author: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Jun 28 17:53:07 2023 -0400

mm/gup: accelerate thp gup even for "pages != NULL"

The acceleration of THP was done with ctx.page_mask, however it'll be
ignored if **pages is non-NULL.

Likely the try_grab_folio() in __get_user_pages() is wrong?

As documented, we already hold a refcount. Likely we should better do a
folio_ref_add() and sanity check the refcount.

In essence, I think: try_grab_folio() should only be called from GUP-fast where
IRQs are disabled.

(2), (3) and (4) are possible offenders of that.

Or am I getting it all wrong? :)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb