Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5

Mike Travis
2008-06-06T13:34:00Z

Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Good
>>>
>>> a9ad585c8a18f7ba754b85f5786976609b9d7d29
>>> Author: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> 2008-05-12 12:21:12
>>> Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> 2008-05-23 09:07:47
>>> Parent: 543e21916497be5a4005fd5820264ce1de9bd56d (x86: restore pda nodenumber field)
>>> Child: 78d49c6d890aee9cf8aea371011c9d7b0121b822 (x86: remove static boot_cpu_pda array v2)
>>> Branch:
>>> Follows: v2.6.26-rc2
>>> Precedes: next-20080526
>>>
>>> x86: remove the static 256k node_to_cpumask_map
>>>
>>> crash, as described earlier.
>> thanks for tracking it down! This was the origin of the commit:
>>
>> # tip/x86/numa: a9ad585: x86: remove the static 256k node_to_cpumask_map
>>
>> which has been in -tip since May 12 and in linux-next for two weeks
>> AFAICS, which is beyond the point of being something freshly wrong.
>>
>> So i suspect something more subtle here. What compiler version are you
>> using? This crash is not something that has been found in testing before
>> - i use rather new compilers, gcc 4.2.2 most of the time. Previous
>> compilers miscompile the kernel seriously so it's not usable for our
>> regression testing grid.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> I reproced it with gc 4.1.2. I think the error is somewhere in kernel/sched.c.
>
> static int __build_sched_domains(const cpumask_t *cpu_map,
> struct sched_domain_attr *attr)
> {
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++) {
> ...
> sg = kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct sched_group), GFP_KERNEL, i);
> ...
>
> This code is calling into the allocator with a spurious value of i,
> which causes SLAB to use an index (of 4 in my case) that is out of
> bounds for its nodelist array (at least it hasn't been initialized).
>
> This bit of code (a bit further down, inside the same loop) is also dubious:
>
> sg = kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct sched_group),
> GFP_KERNEL, i);
> if (!sg) {
> printk(KERN_WARNING
> "Can not alloc domain group for node %d\n", j);
> goto error;
> }
>
> Where it passes i to kmalloc_node() but reports an allocation for node
> j. Which one is correct?
>
> Hope this helps, will send an update if I find out more.
>
>
> Vegard
>

Thanks Vegard for tracking this down. My thoughts were along the same
wavelength... ;-)

Mike