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 S1752761AbdDKDWE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:22:04 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.83.52]:35097 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752290AbdDKDWC (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:22:02 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:21:47 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: clear_page, copy_page address align question?
Message-ID: <20170411032147.GA2283@bgram>
References: <20170411030823.GB6545@bbox>
 <1491880344.4166.224.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1491880344.4166.224.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:12:24PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:08 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > When I tested zram in ppc64, I got random corruption.
> > With investigation, it seems clear_page corrupted the memory.
> > I passed 64K kmalloced(kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE)) address to clear_page
> > and turned on slub debug so address is not aligned with PAGE_SIZE.
> > Is it a valid usecase that non-PAGE_SIZE aligned address is
> > used for clear_page in ppc64?
> > 
> > As well, copy_page have same rule, too?
> > 
> > Anyway, when I changed clear_page to memset, it seems the problem
> > is gone.
> 
> Yes, both clear_page and copy_page assume a PAGE_SHIFT alignment and
> are highly optimize according to this.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised of other architectures implementations are the
> same.
> 
> I don't think it's ever legit to call these functions for something
> that isn't a naturally aligned page.


If it's the common for every architecture, it would have better to
have description about that in somewhere or WARN_ON. :(

Thanks for the confirm!