From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17246 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2009 18:12:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 17235 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jan 2009 18:12:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,J_CHICKENPOX_45,KAM_MX,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:12:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0SICehQ001076 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:12:40 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0SICg5G023653 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:12:42 -0500 Received: from [10.16.2.60] (dhcp-100-2-60.bos.redhat.com [10.16.2.60]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0SICd7U009742; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:12:40 -0500 Message-ID: <4980A03A.2030400@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:21:00 -0000 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mathieu Desnoyers CC: Nick Piggin , LKML , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Jim Keniston , systemtap-ml , "Frank Ch. Eigler" Subject: Re: [BUG][kprobes][vunmap?]: kprobes may cause memory corruption References: <497FC3B1.7050805@redhat.com> <497FE895.1080708@redhat.com> <20090128154824.GA6025@Krystal> <49808EEF.1020700@redhat.com> <20090128171331.GA9006@Krystal> <49809CCE.40409@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <49809CCE.40409@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> * Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote: >>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > [...] >>>> All this called in a loop. This would help isolating the "vmap" part of >>>> the issue. If this test is not enough, then we should maybe try >>>> something like this in a kernel module (which does what text_poke does >>>> with vmalloc, more or less) in a loop : >>>> >>>> char somedata[PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE))); >>>> char copydata[PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE))); >>> Should both of them have PAGE_SIZE*2? >>> >> Yes. >> >>>> void test_vmap(void) >>>> } >>>> struct page *pages[2]; >>>> char *vaddr; >>>> int i; >>>> >>>> for (i = 0; i < 2 * PAGE_SIZE; i++) >>>> copydata[i] = somedata[i]; >>>> page[0] = virt_to_page(&somedata); >>>> BUG_ON(!page[0]); >>>> page[1] = virt_to_page(&somedata + PAGE_SIZE); >>>> BUG_ON(!page[1]); > > Oops, these should be vmalloc_to_page(), shouldn't it? > >>>> vaddr = vmap(pages, 2, VM_MAP, PAGE_KERNEL); >>>> BUG_ON(!vaddr); >>>> >>>> for (i = 0; i < 2 * PAGE_SIZE; i++) >>>> vaddr[i] = copydata[i] + 1; >>>> >>>> vunmap(vaddr); >>>> >>>> for (i = 0; i < 2 * PAGE_SIZE; i++) >>>> BUG_ON(somedata[i] != copydata[i] + 1); >>>> } >>> Hmm, when I ran above code, it hit the last BUG_ON(). >>> I checked that somedata[i] didn't updated. >>> >> Do you hit the BUG_ON after the first loop ? > > At the first loop, it hit the BUG_ON. > >>>> Given you don't seem to have hit the >>>> for (i = 0; i < len; i++) >>>> BUG_ON(((char *)addr)[i] != ((char *)opcode)[i]); >>>> test at the end of text_poke, >>> However, when I ran kprobe-based test, it doesn't hit the BUG_ON() >>> in text_poke(). >>> >> The variable declarations should have been 2*PAGE_SIZE, hopefully you >> fixed them. > > Sure, > >> There is also a sync_core() in text_poke. It should not matter, but >> maybe that could help ? > > Adding sync_core() could not help me... anyway, I'll try again > with using vmalloc_to_page(). Hmm, using vmalloc_to_page() works fine... the test didn't hit any BUG_ON. > >>>> I suspect the write through the vmapped >>>> area is correctly done, but that the problem may lay in the mm layer. >>>> Maybe it's running out of pre-allocated vmap areas or something like >>>> this ? >>> I haven't seen vmalloc failure message on 2.6.29-rc2. >>> >> It could be because the available vmalloc space is slightly higher. >> Looking into the lazy vunmap threshold would be useful. >> >> You could also try with loop values higher than 400. I also tested with 1000 loops, but nothing happened. Thank you, > > OK, Thanks, > -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com