[syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[syzbot ci]

syzbot ci has tested the following series

[v1] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251110160457.61791-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com
* [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp flags
* [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: Add a helper to optimize vmalloc allocation gfps
* [PATCH 3/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup large_gfp in vm_area_alloc_pages()
* [PATCH 4/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup gfp flag use in new_vmap_block()

and found the following issue:
WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats

Full report is available here:
https://ci.syzbot.org/series/488ab7c0-de91-4749-bbb2-ca76c3fb798b

***

WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats

tree:      mm-new
URL:       https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git
base:      02dafa01ec9a00c3758c1c6478d82fe601f5f1ba
arch:      amd64
compiler:  Debian clang version 20.1.8 (++20250708063551+0c9f909b7976-1~exp1~20250708183702.136), Debian LLD 20.1.8
config:    https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/2334ae39-552d-4ca2-8562-7adc18ce2cb0/config

can: broadcast manager protocol
can: netlink gateway - max_hops=1
can: SAE J1939
can: isotp protocol (max_pdu_size 8300)
Bluetooth: RFCOMM TTY layer initialized
Bluetooth: RFCOMM socket layer initialized
Bluetooth: RFCOMM ver 1.11
Bluetooth: BNEP (Ethernet Emulation) ver 1.3
Bluetooth: BNEP filters: protocol multicast
Bluetooth: BNEP socket layer initialized
Bluetooth: HIDP (Human Interface Emulation) ver 1.2
Bluetooth: HIDP socket layer initialized
NET: Registered PF_RXRPC protocol family
Key type rxrpc registered
Key type rxrpc_s registered
NET: Registered PF_KCM protocol family
lec:lane_module_init: lec.c: initialized
mpoa:atm_mpoa_init: mpc.c: initialized
l2tp_core: L2TP core driver, V2.0
l2tp_ppp: PPPoL2TP kernel driver, V2.0
l2tp_ip: L2TP IP encapsulation support (L2TPv3)
l2tp_netlink: L2TP netlink interface
l2tp_eth: L2TP ethernet pseudowire support (L2TPv3)
l2tp_ip6: L2TP IP encapsulation support for IPv6 (L2TPv3)
NET: Registered PF_PHONET protocol family
8021q: 802.1Q VLAN Support v1.8
sctp: Hash tables configured (bind 32/56)
NET: Registered PF_RDS protocol family
Registered RDS/infiniband transport
Registered RDS/tcp transport
tipc: Activated (version 2.0.0)
NET: Registered PF_TIPC protocol family
tipc: Started in single node mode
smc: adding smcd device lo without pnetid
NET: Registered PF_SMC protocol family
9pnet: Installing 9P2000 support
NET: Registered PF_CAIF protocol family
NET: Registered PF_IEEE802154 protocol family
Key type dns_resolver registered
Key type ceph registered
libceph: loaded (mon/osd proto 15/24)
batman_adv: B.A.T.M.A.N. advanced 2025.4 (compatibility version 15) loaded
openvswitch: Open vSwitch switching datapath
NET: Registered PF_VSOCK protocol family
mpls_gso: MPLS GSO support
IPI shorthand broadcast: enabled
sched_clock: Marking stable (21550045890, 115271513)->(21677757748, -12440345)
registered taskstats version 1
------------[ cut here ]------------
Unexpected gfp: 0x100000 (__GFP_HARDWALL). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1 at mm/vmalloc.c:3936 vmalloc_fix_flags+0x9c/0xe0
Modules linked in:
CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) 
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:vmalloc_fix_flags+0x9c/0xe0
Code: 81 e6 1f 52 fe ff 89 74 24 30 81 e3 e0 ad 01 00 89 5c 24 20 90 48 c7 c7 80 b9 76 8b 4c 89 fa 89 d9 4d 89 f0 e8 85 31 6e ff 90 <0f> 0b 90 90 8b 44 24 20 48 c7 04 24 0e 36 e0 45 4b c7 04 2c 00 00
RSP: 0000:ffffc90000066d60 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: 50a201fad922ca00 RBX: 0000000000000dc0 RCX: ffff888160a80000
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000002
RBP: ffffc90000066df8 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000004
R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: fffffbfff1bba678 R12: 1ffff9200000cdac
R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: ffffc90000066d80 R15: ffffc90000066d90
FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8882a9f32000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 000000000dd38000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
 __vmalloc_noprof+0xf2/0x120
 bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats+0x4a/0x4d0
 bpf_prog_alloc+0x3c/0x1a0
 bpf_prog_load+0x735/0x19e0
 __sys_bpf+0x507/0x860
 kern_sys_bpf+0x17d/0x6b0
 load+0x39e/0x940
 do_one_initcall+0x236/0x820
 do_initcall_level+0x104/0x190
 do_initcalls+0x59/0xa0
 kernel_init_freeable+0x334/0x4b0
 kernel_init+0x1d/0x1d0
 ret_from_fork+0x4bc/0x870
 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
 </TASK>


***

If these findings have caused you to resend the series or submit a
separate fix, please add the following tag to your commit message:
  Tested-by: syzbot@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
syzbot ci engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.

Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:22:26AM -0800, syzbot ci wrote:
> syzbot ci has tested the following series
> 
> [v1] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251110160457.61791-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com
> * [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp flags
> * [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: Add a helper to optimize vmalloc allocation gfps
> * [PATCH 3/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup large_gfp in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> * [PATCH 4/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup gfp flag use in new_vmap_block()
> 
> and found the following issue:
> WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> 
> Full report is available here:
> https://ci.syzbot.org/series/488ab7c0-de91-4749-bbb2-ca76c3fb798b
> 
> ***
> 
> WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> 
> tree:      mm-new
> URL:       https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git
> base:      02dafa01ec9a00c3758c1c6478d82fe601f5f1ba
> arch:      amd64
> compiler:  Debian clang version 20.1.8 (++20250708063551+0c9f909b7976-1~exp1~20250708183702.136), Debian LLD 20.1.8
> config:    https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/2334ae39-552d-4ca2-8562-7adc18ce2cb0/config
> 
> can: broadcast manager protocol
> can: netlink gateway - max_hops=1
> can: SAE J1939
> can: isotp protocol (max_pdu_size 8300)
> Bluetooth: RFCOMM TTY layer initialized
> Bluetooth: RFCOMM socket layer initialized
> Bluetooth: RFCOMM ver 1.11
> Bluetooth: BNEP (Ethernet Emulation) ver 1.3
> Bluetooth: BNEP filters: protocol multicast
> Bluetooth: BNEP socket layer initialized
> Bluetooth: HIDP (Human Interface Emulation) ver 1.2
> Bluetooth: HIDP socket layer initialized
> NET: Registered PF_RXRPC protocol family
> Key type rxrpc registered
> Key type rxrpc_s registered
> NET: Registered PF_KCM protocol family
> lec:lane_module_init: lec.c: initialized
> mpoa:atm_mpoa_init: mpc.c: initialized
> l2tp_core: L2TP core driver, V2.0
> l2tp_ppp: PPPoL2TP kernel driver, V2.0
> l2tp_ip: L2TP IP encapsulation support (L2TPv3)
> l2tp_netlink: L2TP netlink interface
> l2tp_eth: L2TP ethernet pseudowire support (L2TPv3)
> l2tp_ip6: L2TP IP encapsulation support for IPv6 (L2TPv3)
> NET: Registered PF_PHONET protocol family
> 8021q: 802.1Q VLAN Support v1.8
> sctp: Hash tables configured (bind 32/56)
> NET: Registered PF_RDS protocol family
> Registered RDS/infiniband transport
> Registered RDS/tcp transport
> tipc: Activated (version 2.0.0)
> NET: Registered PF_TIPC protocol family
> tipc: Started in single node mode
> smc: adding smcd device lo without pnetid
> NET: Registered PF_SMC protocol family
> 9pnet: Installing 9P2000 support
> NET: Registered PF_CAIF protocol family
> NET: Registered PF_IEEE802154 protocol family
> Key type dns_resolver registered
> Key type ceph registered
> libceph: loaded (mon/osd proto 15/24)
> batman_adv: B.A.T.M.A.N. advanced 2025.4 (compatibility version 15) loaded
> openvswitch: Open vSwitch switching datapath
> NET: Registered PF_VSOCK protocol family
> mpls_gso: MPLS GSO support
> IPI shorthand broadcast: enabled
> sched_clock: Marking stable (21550045890, 115271513)->(21677757748, -12440345)
> registered taskstats version 1
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> Unexpected gfp: 0x100000 (__GFP_HARDWALL). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
>
It looks like we need to add __GFP_HARDWALL to the white-list-mask.

--
Uladzislau Rezki

Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Unexpected gfp: 0x100000 (__GFP_HARDWALL). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
> >
> It looks like we need to add __GFP_HARDWALL to the white-list-mask.

__GFP_HARDWALL is part of GFP_USER.  Doing GFP_USER vmalloc sounds like
a bit of an odd idea to me, but there are a few users mostly in bpf
and drm code (why do these always show up for odd API usage patterns?).

So I guess yes, we'll need to allow it for now, but I'd like to start
a discussion if it really makes much sense.

Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:07:29PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > Unexpected gfp: 0x100000 (__GFP_HARDWALL). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
> > >
> > It looks like we need to add __GFP_HARDWALL to the white-list-mask.
> 
> __GFP_HARDWALL is part of GFP_USER.  Doing GFP_USER vmalloc sounds like
> a bit of an odd idea to me, but there are a few users mostly in bpf
> and drm code (why do these always show up for odd API usage patterns?).
> 
> So I guess yes, we'll need to allow it for now, but I'd like to start
> a discussion if it really makes much sense.
> 
<snip>
	/* plain bpf_prog allocation */
	prog = bpf_prog_alloc(bpf_prog_size(attr->insn_cnt), GFP_USER);
	if (!prog) {
<snip>

I assume that was the place that triggered the splat.

Vishal, will you send the patch adding GFP_USER to address the splat?

--
Uladzislau Rezki

Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[Vishal Moola (Oracle)]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 01:02:03PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:07:29PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > Unexpected gfp: 0x100000 (__GFP_HARDWALL). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
> > > >
> > > It looks like we need to add __GFP_HARDWALL to the white-list-mask.
> > 
> > __GFP_HARDWALL is part of GFP_USER.  Doing GFP_USER vmalloc sounds like
> > a bit of an odd idea to me, but there are a few users mostly in bpf
> > and drm code (why do these always show up for odd API usage patterns?).
> > 
> > So I guess yes, we'll need to allow it for now, but I'd like to start
> > a discussion if it really makes much sense.
> > 
> <snip>
> 	/* plain bpf_prog allocation */
> 	prog = bpf_prog_alloc(bpf_prog_size(attr->insn_cnt), GFP_USER);
> 	if (!prog) {
> <snip>
> 
> I assume that was the place that triggered the splat.
> 
> Vishal, will you send the patch adding GFP_USER to address the splat?

Yes, I'll send a new version including __GFP_HARDWALL in the mask and
update the comment accordingly.

[syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[syzbot ci]

syzbot ci has tested the following series

[v2] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251112185834.32487-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com
* [PATCH v2 1/4] mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp flags
* [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/vmalloc: Add a helper to optimize vmalloc allocation gfps
* [PATCH v2 3/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup large_gfp in vm_area_alloc_pages()
* [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup gfp flag use in new_vmap_block()

and found the following issue:
WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats

Full report is available here:
https://ci.syzbot.org/series/46d6cb1a-188d-4ff5-8fab-9c58465d74d3

***

WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats

tree:      linux-next
URL:       https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next
base:      b179ce312bafcb8c68dc718e015aee79b7939ff0
arch:      amd64
compiler:  Debian clang version 20.1.8 (++20250708063551+0c9f909b7976-1~exp1~20250708183702.136), Debian LLD 20.1.8
config:    https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/3449e2a5-35e0-4eac-86c6-97ca0ec741d7/config

------------[ cut here ]------------
Unexpected gfp: 0x400000 (__GFP_ACCOUNT). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
WARNING: mm/vmalloc.c:3938 at vmalloc_fix_flags+0x9c/0xe0, CPU#1: syz-executor/6079
Modules linked in:
CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6079 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) 
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:vmalloc_fix_flags+0x9c/0xe0
Code: 81 e6 1f 52 ee ff 89 74 24 30 81 e3 e0 ad 11 00 89 5c 24 20 90 48 c7 c7 40 c3 76 8b 4c 89 fa 89 d9 4d 89 f0 e8 a5 a1 6c ff 90 <0f> 0b 90 90 8b 44 24 20 48 c7 04 24 0e 36 e0 45 4b c7 04 2c 00 00
RSP: 0018:ffffc90005557b00 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: a6bff5ae8e950700 RBX: 0000000000000dc0 RCX: ffff888173b29d40
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000002
RBP: ffffc90005557b98 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000004
R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: fffffbfff1bba6ec R12: 1ffff92000aaaf60
R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: ffffc90005557b20 R15: ffffc90005557b30
FS:  000055557c070500(0000) GS:ffff8882a9ec0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007f86f6df0000 CR3: 0000000113d64000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
 __vmalloc_noprof+0xf2/0x120
 bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats+0x4a/0x4d0
 bpf_prog_alloc+0x3c/0x1a0
 bpf_prog_create_from_user+0xa7/0x440
 do_seccomp+0x7b1/0xd90
 __se_sys_prctl+0xc3c/0x1830
 do_syscall_64+0xfa/0xfa0
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
RIP: 0033:0x7fcbe2f90b0d
Code: 00 48 89 44 24 18 31 c0 48 8d 44 24 60 c7 04 24 18 00 00 00 48 89 44 24 08 48 8d 44 24 20 48 89 44 24 10 b8 9d 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 1b 48 8b 54 24 18 64 48 2b 14 25 28 00 00 00
RSP: 002b:00007ffed4000b80 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000009d
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007fcbe302cf80 RCX: 00007fcbe2f90b0d
RDX: 00007ffed4000be0 RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: 0000000000000016
RBP: 00007ffed4000bf0 R08: 0000000000000006 R09: 0000000000000071
R10: 0000000000000071 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000000006d
R13: 00007ffed4001018 R14: 00007ffed4001298 R15: 0000000000000000
 </TASK>


***

If these findings have caused you to resend the series or submit a
separate fix, please add the following tag to your commit message:
  Tested-by: syzbot@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
syzbot ci engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.

Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:41:37PM -0800, syzbot ci wrote:
> syzbot ci has tested the following series
> 
> [v2] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251112185834.32487-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com
> * [PATCH v2 1/4] mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp flags
> * [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/vmalloc: Add a helper to optimize vmalloc allocation gfps
> * [PATCH v2 3/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup large_gfp in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> * [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup gfp flag use in new_vmap_block()
> 
> and found the following issue:
> WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> 
> Full report is available here:
> https://ci.syzbot.org/series/46d6cb1a-188d-4ff5-8fab-9c58465d74d3
> 
> ***
> 
> WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> 
> tree:      linux-next
> URL:       https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next
> base:      b179ce312bafcb8c68dc718e015aee79b7939ff0
> arch:      amd64
> compiler:  Debian clang version 20.1.8 (++20250708063551+0c9f909b7976-1~exp1~20250708183702.136), Debian LLD 20.1.8
> config:    https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/3449e2a5-35e0-4eac-86c6-97ca0ec741d7/config
> 
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> Unexpected gfp: 0x400000 (__GFP_ACCOUNT). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
> WARNING: mm/vmalloc.c:3938 at vmalloc_fix_flags+0x9c/0xe0, CPU#1: syz-executor/6079
> Modules linked in:
>
Again bpf :)

GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT? I saw there have been __GFP_HARDWALL added already,
IMO it is worth to replace it by "high level flag", which is GFP_USER.

--
Uladzislau Rezki

Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[Vishal Moola (Oracle)]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:41:37PM -0800, syzbot ci wrote:
> > syzbot ci has tested the following series
> > 
> > [v2] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251112185834.32487-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com
> > * [PATCH v2 1/4] mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp flags
> > * [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/vmalloc: Add a helper to optimize vmalloc allocation gfps
> > * [PATCH v2 3/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup large_gfp in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> > * [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup gfp flag use in new_vmap_block()
> > 
> > and found the following issue:
> > WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> > 
> > Full report is available here:
> > https://ci.syzbot.org/series/46d6cb1a-188d-4ff5-8fab-9c58465d74d3
> > 
> > ***
> > 
> > WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> > 
> > tree:      linux-next
> > URL:       https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next
> > base:      b179ce312bafcb8c68dc718e015aee79b7939ff0
> > arch:      amd64
> > compiler:  Debian clang version 20.1.8 (++20250708063551+0c9f909b7976-1~exp1~20250708183702.136), Debian LLD 20.1.8
> > config:    https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/3449e2a5-35e0-4eac-86c6-97ca0ec741d7/config
> > 
> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > Unexpected gfp: 0x400000 (__GFP_ACCOUNT). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
> > WARNING: mm/vmalloc.c:3938 at vmalloc_fix_flags+0x9c/0xe0, CPU#1: syz-executor/6079
> > Modules linked in:
> >
> Again bpf :)
> 
> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT? I saw there have been __GFP_HARDWALL added already,
> IMO it is worth to replace it by "high level flag", which is GFP_USER.

Yeah I'll replace __GFP_HARDWALL with GFP_USER, and add
GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT. At this point I'll just add GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOIO
as well so its easier to understand the mask.

Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 08:48:41AM -0800, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:41:37PM -0800, syzbot ci wrote:
> > > syzbot ci has tested the following series
> > > 
> > > [v2] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251112185834.32487-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com
> > > * [PATCH v2 1/4] mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp flags
> > > * [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/vmalloc: Add a helper to optimize vmalloc allocation gfps
> > > * [PATCH v2 3/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup large_gfp in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> > > * [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/vmalloc: cleanup gfp flag use in new_vmap_block()
> > > 
> > > and found the following issue:
> > > WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> > > 
> > > Full report is available here:
> > > https://ci.syzbot.org/series/46d6cb1a-188d-4ff5-8fab-9c58465d74d3
> > > 
> > > ***
> > > 
> > > WARNING: kmalloc bug in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
> > > 
> > > tree:      linux-next
> > > URL:       https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next
> > > base:      b179ce312bafcb8c68dc718e015aee79b7939ff0
> > > arch:      amd64
> > > compiler:  Debian clang version 20.1.8 (++20250708063551+0c9f909b7976-1~exp1~20250708183702.136), Debian LLD 20.1.8
> > > config:    https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/3449e2a5-35e0-4eac-86c6-97ca0ec741d7/config
> > > 
> > > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > Unexpected gfp: 0x400000 (__GFP_ACCOUNT). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
> > > WARNING: mm/vmalloc.c:3938 at vmalloc_fix_flags+0x9c/0xe0, CPU#1: syz-executor/6079
> > > Modules linked in:
> > >
> > Again bpf :)
> > 
> > GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT? I saw there have been __GFP_HARDWALL added already,
> > IMO it is worth to replace it by "high level flag", which is GFP_USER.
> 
> Yeah I'll replace __GFP_HARDWALL with GFP_USER, and add
> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT. At this point I'll just add GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOIO
> as well so its easier to understand the mask.
>
Sounds good!

--
Uladzislau Rezki