From: "David Wang" <00107082@163.com>
To: "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com>
Cc: oliver.sang@intel.com, urezki@gmail.com, ahuang12@lenovo.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, bhe@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lkp@intel.com,
mjguzik@gmail.com, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, harry.yoo@oracle.com,
kent.overstreet@linux.dev
Subject: Re: CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y conflict/race with alloc_tag_init
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:45:31 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <375419f4.2ba1.1979aad313a.Coremail.00107082@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpFLKR7CqAHG+QjHt4wCLgWmP7dD+f5D8Jx6gHUoXSe1AA@mail.gmail.com>
At 2025-06-23 06:50:44, "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 3:03 AM David Wang <00107082@163.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 02:25:37PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > for this change, we reported
>> > "[linux-next:master] [lib/test_vmalloc.c] 7fc85b92db: Mem-Info"
>> > in
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505071555.e757f1e0-lkp@intel.com/
>> >
>> > at that time, we made some tests with x86_64 config which runs well.
>> >
>> > now we noticed the commit is in mainline now.
>>
>> > the config still has expected diff with parent:
>> >
>> > --- /pkg/linux/x86_64-randconfig-161-20250614/gcc-12/7a73348e5d4715b5565a53f21c01ea7b54e46cbd/.config 2025-06-17 14:40:29.481052101 +0800
>> > +++ /pkg/linux/x86_64-randconfig-161-20250614/gcc-12/2d76e79315e403aab595d4c8830b7a46c19f0f3b/.config 2025-06-17 14:41:18.448543738 +0800
>> > @@ -7551,7 +7551,7 @@ CONFIG_TEST_IDA=m
>> > CONFIG_TEST_MISC_MINOR=m
>> > # CONFIG_TEST_LKM is not set
>> > CONFIG_TEST_BITOPS=m
>> > -CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=m
>> > +CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y
>> > # CONFIG_TEST_BPF is not set
>> > CONFIG_FIND_BIT_BENCHMARK=m
>> > # CONFIG_TEST_FIRMWARE is not set
>> >
>> >
>> > then we noticed similar random issue with x86_64 randconfig this time.
>> >
>> > 7a73348e5d4715b5 2d76e79315e403aab595d4c8830
>> > ---------------- ---------------------------
>> > fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
>> > | | |
>> > :199 34% 67:200 dmesg.KASAN:null-ptr-deref_in_range[#-#]
>> > :199 34% 67:200 dmesg.Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception
>> > :199 34% 67:200 dmesg.Mem-Info
>> > :199 34% 67:200 dmesg.Oops:general_protection_fault,probably_for_non-canonical_address#:#[##]SMP_KASAN
>> > :199 34% 67:200 dmesg.RIP:down_read_trylock
>> >
>> > we don't have enough knowledge to understand the relationship between code
>> > change and the random issues. just report what we obsverved in our tests FYI.
>> >
>>
>> I think this is caused by a race between vmalloc_test_init and alloc_tag_init.
>>
>> vmalloc_test actually depends on alloc_tag via alloc_tag_top_users, because when
>> memory allocation fails show_mem() would invoke alloc_tag_top_users.
>>
>> With following configuration:
>>
>> CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y
>> CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING=y
>> CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT=y
>> CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG=y
>>
>> If vmalloc_test_init starts before alloc_tag_init, show_mem() would cause
>> a NULL deference because alloc_tag_cttype was not init yet.
>>
>> I add some debug to confirm this theory
>> diff --git a/lib/alloc_tag.c b/lib/alloc_tag.c
>> index d48b80f3f007..9b8e7501010f 100644
>> --- a/lib/alloc_tag.c
>> +++ b/lib/alloc_tag.c
>> @@ -133,6 +133,8 @@ size_t alloc_tag_top_users(struct codetag_bytes *tags, size_t count, bool can_sl
>> struct codetag *ct;
>> struct codetag_bytes n;
>> unsigned int i, nr = 0;
>> + pr_info("memory profiling alloc top %d: %llx\n", mem_profiling_support, (long long)alloc_tag_cttype);
>> + return 0;
>>
>> if (can_sleep)
>> codetag_lock_module_list(alloc_tag_cttype, true);
>> @@ -831,6 +833,7 @@ static int __init alloc_tag_init(void)
>> shutdown_mem_profiling(true);
>> return PTR_ERR(alloc_tag_cttype);
>> }
>> + pr_info("memory profiling ready %d: %llx\n", mem_profiling_support, (long long)alloc_tag_cttype);
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> When bootup the kernel, the log shows:
>>
>> $ sudo dmesg -T | grep profiling
>> [Fri Jun 20 17:29:35 2025] memory profiling alloc top 1: 0 <--- alloc_tag_cttype == NULL
>> [Fri Jun 20 17:30:24 2025] memory profiling ready 1: ffff9b1641aa06c0
>>
>>
>> vmalloc_test_init should happened after alloc_tag_init if CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y,
>> or mem_show() should check whether alloc_tag is done initialized when calling
>> alloc_tag_top_users
>
>Thanks for reporting!
>So, IIUC https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250620195305.1115151-1-harry.yoo@oracle.com/
>will address this issue as well. Is that correct?
Yes, the panic can be fix by that patch.
I still feel it better to delay vmalloc_test_init, make it happen after alloc_tag_init.
Or, maybe we can promote alloc_tag_init to some early init? I remember reporting some allocation
not registered by memory profiling during boot,
https://lore.kernel.org/all/213ff7d2.7c6c.1945eb0c2ff.Coremail.00107082@163.com/
I will make some tests, and update later
David
>
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-23 2:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-18 6:25 [linus:master] [lib/test_vmalloc.c] 2d76e79315: Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception kernel test robot
2025-06-19 14:10 ` Kernel crash due to alloc_tag_top_users() being called when !mem_profiling_support? Harry Yoo
2025-06-19 15:04 ` Harry Yoo
2025-06-20 8:47 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-06-22 22:54 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-06-23 11:29 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-06-19 15:08 ` David Wang
2025-06-20 1:14 ` Harry Yoo
2025-06-20 0:40 ` [PATCH] lib/alloc_tag: do not acquire nonexistent lock when mem profiling is disabled Harry Yoo
2025-06-20 3:09 ` David Wang
2025-06-20 10:40 ` [PATCH] " Harry Yoo
2025-06-20 11:33 ` Harry Yoo
2025-06-20 13:59 ` David Wang
2025-06-20 12:47 ` Harry Yoo
2025-06-20 10:02 ` CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC=y conflict/race with alloc_tag_init David Wang
2025-06-22 22:50 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-06-23 2:04 ` Harry Yoo
2025-06-23 2:45 ` David Wang [this message]
2025-06-23 3:16 ` David Wang
2025-06-23 4:39 ` David Wang
2025-06-23 11:36 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-06-23 13:20 ` David Wang
2025-06-20 14:24 ` [PATCH] lib/test_vmalloc.c: demote vmalloc_test_init to late_initcall David Wang
2025-06-20 19:59 ` Harry Yoo
2025-06-20 19:53 ` [PATCH v2] lib/alloc_tag: do not acquire non-existent lock in alloc_tag_top_users() Harry Yoo
2025-06-21 3:43 ` David Wang
2025-06-22 22:24 ` [PATCH " Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-06-23 2:01 ` Harry Yoo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=375419f4.2ba1.1979aad313a.Coremail.00107082@163.com \
--to=00107082@163.com \
--cc=ahuang12@lenovo.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox