[dm-devel] limits->max_sectors is getting set to 0, why/where? [was: Re: dm: kernel oops by divide error on v4.16+]

[Jens Axboe]

On 4/9/18 4:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 04:10:17PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/9/18 4:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe at kernel.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/18 3:26 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 4/9/18 1:32 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/18 12:38 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 09 2018 at 11:51am -0400,
>>>>>>> Mike Snitzer <snitzer at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 08 2018 at 12:00am -0400,
>>>>>>>> Ming Lei <ming.lei at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following kernel oops(divide error) is triggered when running
>>>>>>>>> xfstest(generic/347) on ext4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [  442.632954] run fstests generic/347 at 2018-04-07 18:06:44
>>>>>>>>> [  443.839480] divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
>>>>>>>>> [  443.840201] Dumping ftrace buffer:
>>>>>>>>> [  443.840692]    (ftrace buffer empty)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> [  443.845756] CPU: 1 PID: 29607 Comm: dmsetup Not tainted 4.16.0_f605ba97fb80_master+ #1
>>>>>>>>> [  443.846968] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.10.2-2.fc27 04/01/2014
>>>>>>>>> [  443.848147] RIP: 0010:pool_io_hints+0x77/0x153 [dm_thin_pool]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was able to reproduce (in my case RIP was pool_io_hints+0x45)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which on my kernel, is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> crash> dis -l pool_io_hints+0x45
>>>>>>>> /root/snitm/git/linux/drivers/md/dm-thin.c: 2748
>>>>>>>> 0xffffffffc0765165 <pool_io_hints+69>:  div    %rdi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is drivers/md/dm-thin.c:is_factor()'s return
>>>>>>>> !sector_div(block_size, n);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SO looking at pool_io_hints() it would seem limits->max_sectors is 0 for
>>>>>>>> this xfstests device... why would that be!?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly pool_io_hints() could stand to be more defensive with a
>>>>>>>> !limits->max_sectors negative check but is it ever really valid for
>>>>>>>> max_sectors to be 0?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty sure the ultimate bug is outside DM (but not seeing an obvious
>>>>>>>> place where block core would set max_sectors to 0, all blk-settings.c
>>>>>>>> uses min_not_zero(), etc).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I successfully ran this test against the linux-dm.git
>>>>>>> "for-4.17/dm-changes" tag that Linus merged after the block changes:
>>>>>>>  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git tags/for-4.17/dm-changes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # ./check tests/generic/347
>>>>>>> FSTYP         -- ext4
>>>>>>> PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 thegoat 4.16.0-rc5.snitm
>>>>>>> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- /dev/mapper/test-xfstests_scratch
>>>>>>> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr /dev/mapper/test-xfstests_scratch /scratch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> generic/347      65s
>>>>>>> Ran: generic/347
>>>>>>> Passed all 1 tests
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SO this would seem to implicate some regression in the 4.17 block layer
>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No immediate ideas come to mind, we didn't have a lot of changes and I
>>>>>> don't see anything that looks problematic. Maybe you can try and
>>>>>> bisect it and see what you come up with?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran it, problematic commit is:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 3c8ba0d61d04ced9f8d9ff93977995a9e4e96e91
>>>>> Author: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org>
>>>>> Date:   Fri Mar 30 18:52:36 2018 -0700
>>>>>
>>>>>     kernel.h: Retain constant expression output for max()/min()
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fun continues. Thinking I'd try a userspace repro and thinking it
>>>> would be difficult to reproduce, try the attached min.c that just copies
>>>> all the bits from include/linux/kernel.h
>>>>
>>>> axboe at x1:~ $ gcc -Wall -O2 -o min min.c
>>>> axboe at x1:~ $ ./min 128 256
>>>> min_not_zero(128, 256) = 0
>>>
>>> This should be fixed with e9092d0d9796 ("Fix subtle macro variable
>>> shadowing in min_not_zero()").
>>
>> Yep that works, which is a relief. Some basic unit testing would have
>> been very appropriate in this case, given how fundamentally broken it
>> was... It's amazing nothing catastrophic happened.
> 
> Actually, there was, :-)
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/9/355

That's bad, for sure, but my worry was bigger than an oops or crash,
we could have had corruption due to this.

The resulting min/max and friends would have been trivial to test, but
clearly they weren't.

-- 
Jens Axboe