Re: [PATCH] block: Initialize cfqq->ioprio_class in cfq_get_queue()

[Jens Axboe]

On 01/23/2017 09:17 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2017-01-23 17:06 GMT+03:00 Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> KMSAN (KernelMemorySanitizer, a new error detection tool) reports use of
>>> uninitialized memory in cfq_init_cfqq():
>>>
>>> ==================================================================
>>> BUG: KMSAN: use of unitialized memory
>>> ...
>>> Call Trace:
>>>  [<     inline     >] __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15
>>>  [<ffffffff8202ac97>] dump_stack+0x157/0x1d0 lib/dump_stack.c:51
>>>  [<ffffffff813e9b65>] kmsan_report+0x205/0x360 ??:?
>>>  [<ffffffff813eabbb>] __msan_warning+0x5b/0xb0 ??:?
>>>  [<     inline     >] cfq_init_cfqq block/cfq-iosched.c:3754
>>>  [<ffffffff8201e110>] cfq_get_queue+0xc80/0x14d0 block/cfq-iosched.c:3857
>>> ...
>>> origin:
>>>  [<ffffffff8103ab37>] save_stack_trace+0x27/0x50 arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:67
>>>  [<ffffffff813e836b>] kmsan_internal_poison_shadow+0xab/0x150 ??:?
>>>  [<ffffffff813e88ab>] kmsan_poison_slab+0xbb/0x120 ??:?
>>>  [<     inline     >] allocate_slab mm/slub.c:1627
>>>  [<ffffffff813e533f>] new_slab+0x3af/0x4b0 mm/slub.c:1641
>>>  [<     inline     >] new_slab_objects mm/slub.c:2407
>>>  [<ffffffff813e0ef3>] ___slab_alloc+0x323/0x4a0 mm/slub.c:2564
>>>  [<     inline     >] __slab_alloc mm/slub.c:2606
>>>  [<     inline     >] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:2669
>>>  [<ffffffff813dfb42>] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1d2/0x1f0 mm/slub.c:2746
>>>  [<ffffffff8201d90d>] cfq_get_queue+0x47d/0x14d0 block/cfq-iosched.c:3850
>>> ...
>>> ==================================================================
>>> (the line numbers are relative to 4.8-rc6, but the bug persists
>>> upstream)
>>>
>>> The uninitialized struct cfq_queue is created by kmem_cache_alloc_node()
>>> and then passed to cfq_init_cfqq(), which accesses cfqq->ioprio_class
>>> before it's initialized.
>>>
>>
>> struct cfq_queue is zero initialized (__GFP_ZERO).
>> The warning is false-positive.
> You are totally right. I've handled __GFP_ZERO in (hopefully) every
> case except for this one, and overlooked the presence of that flag in
> the kmem_cache_alloc_node().
> Thanks for double-checking!
> Jens, sorry for the false alarm.

No worries, I did queue up the patch, since even if it is a false
positive, it's cleaner to set this explicitly to NONE rather than
silently rely on the fact that NONE is 0.

-- 
Jens Axboe