From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754384AbcL3PKv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:10:51 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42493 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754093AbcL3PKu (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:10:50 -0500
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:10:49 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sg_io HARDENED_USERCOPY_PAGESPAN trace
Message-ID: <20161230151049.GA20387@infradead.org>
References: <20161228214016.leperioiukslpho4@codemonkey.org.uk>
 <20161229075642.GA30837@infradead.org>
 <20161229154351.6zrxuagi62pga6mt@codemonkey.org.uk>
 <20161230133712.GA27511@infradead.org>
 <20161230150139.ulljsnnqntzku7tq@codemonkey.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161230150139.ulljsnnqntzku7tq@codemonkey.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <hch@infradead.org> by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:01:39AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> I threw this debug printk into the pagespan code to see what exactly
> it was complaining about..
> 
> ptr:ffff88042614cff8 end:ffff88042614d003 n:c
> 
> so it was copying 12 bytes that spanned two pages.
> >From my reading of the config option help text, this thing is
> complaining that wasn't allocated with __GFP_COMP maybe ?

If this is on a devie using blk-mq the block core will use high
order allocations (as high as possible) to allocate the requests
for each queue, so struct request could very well span multiple
pages.  But I don't see what __GFP_COMP would have to do with
user copy annoations.  As all requests for a queue are freed
togeth again there is no point in setting __GFP_COMP for the
request allocations.