* Re: [PATCH] mm: kmsan: fix instrumentation recursion on preempt_count
2024-03-11 11:42 ` Mark Rutland
@ 2024-03-11 12:06 ` Changbin Du
2024-03-15 16:32 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Changbin Du @ 2024-03-11 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: Changbin Du, Ingo Molnar, Andrew Morton, Peter Zijlstra,
Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt,
Ben Segall, Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira,
Valentin Schneider, kasan-dev, linux-mm, Alexander Potapenko,
linux-kernel, Marco Elver
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:42:29AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 07:23:30PM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > This disables msan check for preempt_count_{add,sub} to fix a
> > instrumentation recursion issue on preempt_count:
> >
> > __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_4() -> kmsan_virt_addr_valid() ->
> > preempt_disable() -> __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_4()
> >
> > With this fix, I was able to run kmsan kernel with:
> > o CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=n
> > o CONFIG_KFENCE=n
> > o CONFIG_LOCKDEP=n
> >
> > KMEMLEAK and KFENCE generate too many false positives in unwinding code.
> > LOCKDEP still introduces instrumenting recursions issue. But these are
> > other issues expected to be fixed.
> >
> > Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 9116bcc90346..5b63bb98e60a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -5848,7 +5848,7 @@ static inline void preempt_latency_start(int val)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -void preempt_count_add(int val)
> > +void __no_kmsan_checks preempt_count_add(int val)
> > {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> > /*
> > @@ -5880,7 +5880,7 @@ static inline void preempt_latency_stop(int val)
> > trace_preempt_on(CALLER_ADDR0, get_lock_parent_ip());
> > }
>
> What prevents a larger loop via one of the calles of preempt_count_{add,sub}()
>
> For example, via preempt_latency_{start,stop}() ?
>
> ... or via some *other* instrumentation that might be placed in those?
>
> I suspect we should be using noinstr or __always_inline in a bunch of places to
> clean this up properly.
>
In my local build, these two are not that small for inlining. (I has preempt_off
tracer enabled).
$ readelf -s vmlinux | grep -sw -E 'preempt_count_add|preempt_count_sub'
157043: ffffffff81174de0 186 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 1 preempt_count_add
157045: ffffffff81174eb0 216 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 1 preempt_count_sub
The noinstr adds __no_sanitize_memory to the tagged functions so we might see
many false positives.
> Mark.
--
Cheers,
Changbin Du
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mm: kmsan: fix instrumentation recursion on preempt_count
2024-03-11 11:42 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-11 12:06 ` Changbin Du
@ 2024-03-15 16:32 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2024-03-15 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland, Changbin Du
Cc: Ingo Molnar, Andrew Morton, Peter Zijlstra, Juri Lelli,
Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann, Steven Rostedt, Ben Segall,
Mel Gorman, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira, Valentin Schneider,
kasan-dev, linux-mm, Alexander Potapenko, linux-kernel,
Marco Elver
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:42:29AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 07:23:30PM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > This disables msan check for preempt_count_{add,sub} to fix a
> > instrumentation recursion issue on preempt_count:
> >
> > __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_4() -> kmsan_virt_addr_valid() ->
> > preempt_disable() -> __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_4()
> >
> > With this fix, I was able to run kmsan kernel with:
> > o CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=n
> > o CONFIG_KFENCE=n
> > o CONFIG_LOCKDEP=n
> >
> > KMEMLEAK and KFENCE generate too many false positives in unwinding code.
> > LOCKDEP still introduces instrumenting recursions issue. But these are
> > other issues expected to be fixed.
> >
> > Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 9116bcc90346..5b63bb98e60a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -5848,7 +5848,7 @@ static inline void preempt_latency_start(int val)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -void preempt_count_add(int val)
> > +void __no_kmsan_checks preempt_count_add(int val)
> > {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> > /*
> > @@ -5880,7 +5880,7 @@ static inline void preempt_latency_stop(int val)
> > trace_preempt_on(CALLER_ADDR0, get_lock_parent_ip());
> > }
>
> What prevents a larger loop via one of the calles of preempt_count_{add,sub}()
>
> For example, via preempt_latency_{start,stop}() ?
>
> ... or via some *other* instrumentation that might be placed in those?
>
> I suspect we should be using noinstr or __always_inline in a bunch of places to
> clean this up properly.
>
> Mark.
Hi,
I tried the patch with the ftrace testsuite, and this uncovered another
loop, as predicted here:
preempt_count_add():int3
function_trace_call()
__msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_8()
kmsan_get_shadow_origin_ptr()
kmsan_get_metadata()
virt_to_page_or_null()
preempt_count_add()
Best regards,
Ilya
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread