Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 5.10.1: UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:1 | From | Toralf Förster <> | Date | Sun, 20 Dec 2020 11:34:29 +0100 |
| |
On 12/20/20 2:09 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 12/18/20 2:20 AM, Toralf Förster wrote: >> On 12/18/20 7:54 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> [adding linux-mm] >>> >>> On 12/16/20 1:54 AM, Toralf Förster wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I got this recently at this hardened Gentoo Linux server: >>>> >>>> Linux mr-fox 5.10.1 #1 SMP Tue Dec 15 22:09:42 CET 2020 x86_64 Intel(R) >>>> Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 v3 @ 3.50GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux >>>> >>>> >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206972] >>>> ================================================================================ >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206977] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds >>>> in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206980] shift exponent 64 is too >>>> large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206982] CPU: 11 PID: 21051 Comm: >>>> cc1 Tainted: G T 5.10.1 #1 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206984] Hardware name: ASUSTeK >>>> COMPUTER INC. Z10PA-U8 Series/Z10PA-U8 Series, BIOS 3703 08/02/2018 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206985] Call Trace: >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206993] dump_stack+0x57/0x6a >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206996] ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206999] >>>> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds.cold+0x61/0x10e >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207002] >>>> ondemand_readahead.cold+0x16/0x21 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207007] >>>> generic_file_buffered_read+0x452/0x890 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207011] new_sync_read+0x156/0x200 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207014] vfs_read+0xf8/0x190 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207016] ksys_read+0x65/0xe0 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207018] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207021] >>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207024] RIP: 0033:0x7f01b2df198e >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207026] Code: c0 e9 b6 fe ff ff 50 >>>> 48 8d 3d 66 c3 09 00 e8 59 e2 01 00 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 64 8b 04 >>>> 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 14 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 5a c3 66 0f 1f >>>> 84 00 00 00 00 00 48 83 ec 28 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207028] RSP: 002b:00007fff2167e998 >>>> EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207030] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: >>>> 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f01b2df198e >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207032] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: >>>> 00000000054dcc50 RDI: 0000000000000004 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207033] RBP: 00000000054dcc50 R08: >>>> 00000000054dcc50 R09: 0000000000000000 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207034] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: >>>> 0000000000000246 R12: 00000000054dc3b0 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207035] R13: 0000000000008000 R14: >>>> 00000000054c9800 R15: 0000000000000000 >>>> Dec 15 23:31:51 mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.207037] >>>> ================================================================================ >>>> >>>> >>>> Known issue ? >>> >>> Not that I have heard about, but that's not conclusive. >>> >>> Looks to me like this is in mm/readahead.c: >>> >>> static unsigned long get_init_ra_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long max) >>> { >>> unsigned long newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size); >>> >>> >>> What filesystem? What workload? >> >> / is a 32 GB ext4 filesystem. >> Data are at 3 BTRFS filesystems, 1x 500 GB and 2x 1.6TB. >> >> 2 Tor relays run at 100% each and utilizes the 1 GBit/s by 50%-60% [1] >> >> 7 build bots are running over the Gentoo software repostory [2] >> 1 AFL bot fuzzies the Tor sources. >> Those 8 jobs are contained by a cgroup of 9 CPUs and 120 GB RAM [3], >> each job is contained further by an own sub cgroup of 1.5 CPU and 20 GB >> RAM [4] >> >> The host is monitored using sysstat, the load is about 11.8, CPU[all] at >> 80%, proc/s at 1800, cswchs/s at 20000 and so on. >> >> >> [1] https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/zwiebeltoralf >> [2] https://zwiebeltoralf.de/tinderbox.html >> [3] https://github.com/toralf/tinderbox/blob/master/bin/cgroup.sh >> [4] https://github.com/toralf/tinderbox/blob/master/bin/bwrap.sh#L15 >> >> -- > > Hi Toralf, > > Is this something that happens more than once?
Till now only once.
> I think we would like to find out what is causing it. > I see a couple of problems. > > (a) > UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13 > shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' > > <linux/log2.h>:57: is like so: > > 50 /** > 51 * __roundup_pow_of_two() - round up to nearest power of two > 52 * @n: value to round up > 53 */ > 54 static inline __attribute__((const)) > 55 unsigned long __roundup_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) > 56 { > 57 return 1UL << fls_long(n - 1); > 58 } > > It's OK/valid for fls_long() [fls64()] to return 64 for a bit > position -- it just means the high-order bit in a 64-bit value. > So this code should either always subtract 1 from fls_long() or > do that if fls_long() == 64. > > > (b) in mm/readahead.c:get_init_ra_size(): > > 305 /* > 306 * Set the initial window size, round to next power of 2 and square > 307 * for small size, x 4 for medium, and x 2 for large > 308 * for 128k (32 page) max ra > 309 * 1-8 page = 32k initial, > 8 page = 128k initial > 310 */ > 311 static unsigned long get_init_ra_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long max) > 312 { > 313 unsigned long newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size); > > It looks like 'size' is either extremely large or it might be negative if > it were a signed long instead of unsigned, so maybe it's 0x80000000_00000000 > or 0xffffffff_ffffffff or something similar. I think that we should add a > WARN_ON_ONCE() there to try to catch whatever it is. > > > Is this something that you could test if I send some patches?
Sure, no problem
> Unless other people have some other ideas, that is... > > thanks. >
-- Toralf
| |