From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748B1C43334 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 19:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BBE358D004B; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 15:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B467A8D0034; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 15:12:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9BFCB8D004B; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 15:12:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1ED8D0034 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 15:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6041F810E3 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 19:12:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79559643450.19.A1AFF27 Received: from mail-yw1-f201.google.com (mail-yw1-f201.google.com [209.85.128.201]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87CB40056 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 19:12:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-f201.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-30974094b5cso209799197b3.20 for ; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=FSSm+9bvhgEmW3qoBTTPNjVhREVEJPEtoEmaPEajWR0=; b=rheQX3q5gm+JqSEPnyXRm/4V7W847eNbvPvWjho1z5A7iYu9qZG/QjrtIcm4n1niXG rJROrAAjr6HekwElPZeErWzAOok/nOt063R5M8MoppcY4F4jY+4KzKSc6gk2rAS4IuQ6 b0l47RWbk1Z/tTPflBmxlJKWLgVes51IP+opL/9jJT5IyyreMc+B5NLAjeh1RnODi91E 0xZdl4+3VAXQH7OmL+yCPxVxcx6yJ2kEGSaqY8kSJWQ7YY2h1RdKTHdEXHPeBPXQxhE9 sDpJ3yJwReNTK8lhgDhf7cTLR/6tuDelqot4KYeJjucgP8LFzBg0+UgnNy2626a5sz+U /Qfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=FSSm+9bvhgEmW3qoBTTPNjVhREVEJPEtoEmaPEajWR0=; b=IkgioCu/y58p3GZKnaRmHE9sY6DRrR3mICcmrsNdXP++wQNwOiHKyXzAoEFu3NsoWo Xoq+Pr+xXNpuiYoHCc4uturg9lyVVmheTstxTQkziNZljENP3oGoa6bWNe2gKo2Mehgw Kz7nl+MMGoAu7kvimGxLViERCGFtTXDsOONJtZjc3wTfZEJS2dBLJdlnNxb8zuWXcm8I bOj7wlfRqkMhH7znW9JA9HiuUdCl/AA/2CY4PU6jNTcQffSyz7LawqyFsilCaFgFIiv0 DoMD/5wFimNZheRQ21Rs8OJ4JyINRokg//2msbWsYATN50jt6Rs0Is+g99WF+hoeFkWW 8jtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530A1ddZqSpe5cMY7i9NFMqgsO0LSYX8NrJbBQVt2wEE8W9hM/FK gY4b9juIbeYAanXl5OYodiBZEPofjJ6oKQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9v05gr7h/UJrl5rkXxevCDgUr4Asf4N2CtmyR5iQlnR4H5kPQPxLJNhwA7fsw2jUyVZVcUJ8whLMNQA== X-Received: from shakeelb.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:20:ed76:c0a8:28b]) (user=shakeelb job=sendgmr) by 2002:a25:d803:0:b0:663:3da5:9813 with SMTP id p3-20020a25d803000000b006633da59813mr29071178ybg.530.1654801944110; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 19:12:21 +0000 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20220609191221.rv3lqbhipnvvzt67@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: Subject: Re: [next] arm64: boot failed - next-20220606 From: Shakeel Butt To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Linux-Next Mailing List , open list , regressions@lists.linux.dev, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Linux ARM , linux-mm , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Ard Biesheuvel , Arnd Bergmann , Catalin Marinas , Raghuram Thammiraju , Mark Brown , Will Deacon , Vasily Averin , Qian Cai Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1654801945; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=uZjlXRAfB2PayG10L2ssc067xNIVvAOTFqTfxJJzvYbjbsbIn0Ev2YupHHuBHPFjv1DtFT K1RELbnmDKkugYSZNhTyPVmyYEKsErgQ+F8wrBlQZq8HcxaimuFKlNf6wk3kDNKT+Ys6Op e3dA24AxjrETUF+RCl9mxRYIgOypk1g= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=rheQX3q5; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of 3GEaiYggKCEk3slvppwmrzzrwp.nzxwty58-xxv6lnv.z2r@flex--shakeelb.bounces.google.com designates 209.85.128.201 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=3GEaiYggKCEk3slvppwmrzzrwp.nzxwty58-xxv6lnv.z2r@flex--shakeelb.bounces.google.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1654801944; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=FSSm+9bvhgEmW3qoBTTPNjVhREVEJPEtoEmaPEajWR0=; b=Wi3+kdM61vp05y3tznZO6X1kZ5CIMFeoqQ1Wuz+QOUj3QzCdvaojJd0cAHnCG4ZrCD1C5o HRatlHvE4A9rD7FxIpQRbl7dmiTuj+WcxQFVkflQTJ5/LylmsEqo3K5LqJXPcsq40ZQmTF nB3ReMrWXiUtNTF1mtTgdBygyJ9693g= X-Stat-Signature: pcjiwe8fx4i1z3xw69cspj4amzazjhwq X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E87CB40056 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=rheQX3q5; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of 3GEaiYggKCEk3slvppwmrzzrwp.nzxwty58-xxv6lnv.z2r@flex--shakeelb.bounces.google.com designates 209.85.128.201 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=3GEaiYggKCEk3slvppwmrzzrwp.nzxwty58-xxv6lnv.z2r@flex--shakeelb.bounces.google.com X-HE-Tag: 1654801944-336722 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:56:09AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:47:35AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:27 AM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > +struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_obj(void *p) > > > +{ > > > + struct folio *folio; > > > + > > > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) > > > + return NULL; > > > + > > > + if (unlikely(is_vmalloc_addr(p))) > > > + folio = page_folio(vmalloc_to_page(p)); > > > > Do we need to check for NULL from vmalloc_to_page(p)? > > Idk, can it realistically return NULL after is_vmalloc_addr() returned true? > I would be surprised, but maybe I'm missing something. is_vmalloc_addr() is simply checking the range and some buggy caller can provide an unmapped address within the range. Maybe VM_BUG_ON() should be good enough (though no strong opinion either way).