Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages

Michal Hocko
2021-11-09T19:54:57Z

On Tue 09-11-21 14:06:14, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 06:15:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 08-11-21 18:08:52, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/8/21 12:23 PM, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
> > > > There is a kernel panic caused by pcpu_alloc_pages() passing
> > > > offlined and uninitialized node to alloc_pages_node() leading
> > > > to panic by NULL dereferencing uninitialized NODE_DATA(nid).
> > > >
> > > > CPU2 has been hot-added
> > > > BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000000000001608
> > > > #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
> > > > #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
> > > > PGD 0 P4D 0
> > > > Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
> > > > CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Tainted: G E 5.15.0-rc7+ #11
> > > > Hardware name: VMware, Inc. VMware7,1/440BX Desktop Reference Platform, BIOS VMW
> > > >
> > > > RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages+0x127/0x290
> > > > Code: 4c 89 f0 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d c3 44 89 e0 48 8b 55 b8 c1 e8 0c 83 e0 01 88 45 d0 4c 89 c8 48 85 d2 0f 85 1a 01 00 00 <45> 3b 41 08 0f 82 10 01 00 00 48 89 45 c0 48 8b 00 44 89 e2 81 e2
> > > > RSP: 0018:ffffc900006f3bc8 EFLAGS: 00010246
> > > > RAX: 0000000000001600 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000
> > > > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000cc2
> > > > RBP: ffffc900006f3c18 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000001600
> > > > R10: ffffc900006f3a40 R11: ffff88813c9fffe8 R12: 0000000000000cc2
> > > > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 0000000000000cc2
> > > > FS: 00007f27ead70500(0000) GS:ffff88807ce00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > > CR2: 0000000000001608 CR3: 000000000582c003 CR4: 00000000001706b0
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > > pcpu_alloc_pages.constprop.0+0xe4/0x1c0
> > > > pcpu_populate_chunk+0x33/0xb0
> > > > pcpu_alloc+0x4d3/0x6f0
> > > > __alloc_percpu_gfp+0xd/0x10
> > > > alloc_mem_cgroup_per_node_info+0x54/0xb0
> > > > mem_cgroup_alloc+0xed/0x2f0
> > > > mem_cgroup_css_alloc+0x33/0x2f0
> > > > css_create+0x3a/0x1f0
> > > > cgroup_apply_control_enable+0x12b/0x150
> > > > cgroup_mkdir+0xdd/0x110
> > > > kernfs_iop_mkdir+0x4f/0x80
> > > > vfs_mkdir+0x178/0x230
> > > > do_mkdirat+0xfd/0x120
> > > > __x64_sys_mkdir+0x47/0x70
> > > > ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x21/0x50
> > > > do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
> > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > > >
> > > > Panic can be easily reproduced by disabling udev rule for
> > > > automatic onlining hot added CPU followed by CPU with
> > > > memoryless node (NUMA node with CPU only) hot add.
> > > >
> > > > Hot adding CPU and memoryless node does not bring the node
> > > > to online state. Memoryless node will be onlined only during
> > > > the onlining its CPU.
> > > >
> > > > Node can be in one of the following states:
> > > > 1. not present.(nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > > > 2. present, but offline (nid > NUMA_NO_NODE, node_online(nid) == 0,
> > > > NODE_DATA(nid) == NULL)
> > > > 3. present and online (nid > NUMA_NO_NODE, node_online(nid) > 0,
> > > > NODE_DATA(nid) != NULL)
> > > >
> > > > Percpu code is doing allocations for all possible CPUs. The
> > > > issue happens when it serves hot added but not yet onlined
> > > > CPU when its node is in 2nd state. This node is not ready
> > > > to use, fallback to numa_mem_id().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > > Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
> > > > Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> > > > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/percpu-vm.c | 8 ++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/percpu-vm.c b/mm/percpu-vm.c
> > > > index 2054c9213..f58d73c92 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/percpu-vm.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/percpu-vm.c
> > > > @@ -84,15 +84,19 @@ static int pcpu_alloc_pages(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk,
> > > > gfp_t gfp)
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned int cpu, tcpu;
> > > > - int i;
> > > > + int i, nid;
> > > >
> > > > gfp |= __GFP_HIGHMEM;
> > > >
> > > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > + nid = cpu_to_node(cpu);
> > > > + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || !node_online(nid))
> > > > + nid = numa_mem_id();
> > >
> > > Maybe we should fail this fallback if (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) ?
> > >
> > > Or maybe there is no support for this constraint in per-cpu allocator anyway.
> >
> > I would be really curious about the usecase. Not to mention that pcp
> > allocation would be effectively unusable on any setups with memory less
> > nodes.
> >
>
> Sorry, I briefly saw this thread last week but was on jury duty and got
> sequestered when the fix fell into percpu-vm.c.
>
> I'm also not involved with any hotplug work, so my forgive my limited
> understanding.
>
> I'm understanding this as a cpu/mem hotplug problem that we're papering
> over with this fix. Given that, I should be looking to take this out
> when the proper fix to the hotplug subsystem is added. Is that right?

Yes.

> > > I am a bit worried that we do not really know if pages are
> > > allocated on the right node or not.
> >
> > There hasn't been any guarantee like that. Page allocator would fallback
> > to other nodes (in the node distance order) unless __GFP_THISNODE is
> > specified. This patch just papers over the fact that currently we can
> > end up having an invalid numa node associated with a cpu. This is a bug
> > in the initialization code. Even if that is fixed the node fallback is
> > still a real thing that might happen.
> >
>
> Percpu has always allocated for_each_possible_cpu(). This means even
> before a cpu online and corresponding numa node online, we're not
> allocating on the right node anyway. But to me this just seems like a
> straight up bug we're papering over as I said above for memoryless node
> cpu hotplug.

Agreed. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread cpu_to_node resp.
cpu_to_mem shouldn't return a garbage.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs