Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1650137 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area() zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com> - 2017-05-25 05:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in  __insert_vmap_area() Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 03:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area() zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com> - 2017-05-26 04:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in  __insert_vmap_area() Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 03:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area() zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com> - 2017-06-02 04:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in  __insert_vmap_area() Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 04:30 +0200

#1650137 — Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area()

I hit the overlap issue, but it  is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.

if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.

Regards
zhongjiang
On 2017/5/24 18:03, Wei Yang wrote:
> The vmap RB tree store the elements in order and no overlap between any of
> them. The comparison in __insert_vmap_area() is to decide which direction
> the search should follow and make sure the new vmap_area is not overlap
> with any other.
>
> Current implementation fails to do the overlap check.
>
> When first "if" is not true, it means
>
>     va->va_start >= tmp_va->va_end
>
> And with the truth
>
>     xxx->va_end > xxx->va_start
>
> The deduction is
>
>     va->va_end > tmp_va->va_start
>
> which is the condition in second "if".
>
> This patch changes a little of the comparison in __insert_vmap_area() to
> make sure it forbids the overlapped vmap_area.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 0b057628a7ba..8087451cb332 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -360,9 +360,9 @@ static void __insert_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va)
>  
>  		parent = *p;
>  		tmp_va = rb_entry(parent, struct vmap_area, rb_node);
> -		if (va->va_start < tmp_va->va_end)
> +		if (va->va_end <= tmp_va->va_start)
>  			p = &(*p)->rb_left;
> -		else if (va->va_end > tmp_va->va_start)
> +		else if (va->va_start >= tmp_va->va_end)
>  			p = &(*p)->rb_right;
>  		else
>  			BUG();

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651023 — Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area()

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>I hit the overlap issue, but it  is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>
>if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>

Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651037

On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>> I hit the overlap issue, but it  is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>>
>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>>
> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?
 Hi  wei

cat /proc/vmallocinfo
0xf1580000-0xf1600000  524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap
0xf1638000-0xf163a000    8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap
0xf528e000-0xf5292000   16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc
0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap
0xfe001000-0xfe002000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap
0xfe200000-0xfe201000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap
0xff100000-0xff101000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap

I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident.
and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation.
therefore, it is no idea for me. 

Thanks
zhongjinag

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1655834 — Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area()

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:55:31AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>> I hit the overlap issue, but it  is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>>>
>>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>>>
>> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?
> Hi  wei
>
>cat /proc/vmallocinfo
>0xf1580000-0xf1600000  524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap
>0xf1638000-0xf163a000    8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap
>0xf528e000-0xf5292000   16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc
>0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap

These two ranges overlap.

This is hard to say where is the problem. From the code point of view, I don't
see there is possibility to allocate an overlapped range.

Which version of your kernel?
Hard to reproduce means just see once? 

>0xfe001000-0xfe002000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap
>0xfe200000-0xfe201000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap
>0xff100000-0xff101000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap
>
>I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident.
>and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation.
>therefore, it is no idea for me. 
>
>Thanks
>zhongjinag
>

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1655855

On 2017/6/2 9:45, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:55:31AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>> On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>>> I hit the overlap issue, but it  is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>>>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>>>>
>>>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>>>>
>>> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?
>> Hi  wei
>>
>> cat /proc/vmallocinfo
>> 0xf1580000-0xf1600000  524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap
>> 0xf1638000-0xf163a000    8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap
>> 0xf528e000-0xf5292000   16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc
>> 0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap
> These two ranges overlap.
>
> This is hard to say where is the problem. From the code point of view, I don't
> see there is possibility to allocate an overlapped range.
>
> Which version of your kernel?
> Hard to reproduce means just see once? 
  yes, just once.  I have also no see any problem from the code.   The kernel version is linux 4.1.
 but That indeed exist. 

 Thanks
zhongjiang
>> 0xfe001000-0xfe002000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap
>> 0xfe200000-0xfe201000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap
>> 0xff100000-0xff101000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap
>>
>> I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident.
>> and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation.
>> therefore, it is no idea for me. 
>>
>> Thanks
>> zhongjinag
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1656676 — Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: a slight change of compare target in __insert_vmap_area()

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:26:06AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>On 2017/6/2 9:45, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:55:31AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>> On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>>>> I hit the overlap issue, but it  is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>>>>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?
>>> Hi  wei
>>>
>>> cat /proc/vmallocinfo
>>> 0xf1580000-0xf1600000  524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap
>>> 0xf1638000-0xf163a000    8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap
>>> 0xf528e000-0xf5292000   16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc
>>> 0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap
>> These two ranges overlap.
>>
>> This is hard to say where is the problem. From the code point of view, I don't
>> see there is possibility to allocate an overlapped range.
>>
>> Which version of your kernel?
>> Hard to reproduce means just see once? 
>  yes, just once.  I have also no see any problem from the code.   The kernel version is linux 4.1.
> but That indeed exist. 
>

This is really interesting. While without reproducing the behavior, it is
really costly to debug in the code.

I took a look into my own /proc/vmallocinfo, there are around hundred entries.
Currently, I don't have a clue to dive into the issue.

> Thanks
>zhongjiang
>>> 0xfe001000-0xfe002000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap
>>> 0xfe200000-0xfe201000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap
>>> 0xff100000-0xff101000    4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap
>>>
>>> I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident.
>>> and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation.
>>> therefore, it is no idea for me. 
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> zhongjinag
>>>
>

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web