Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix sleeping allocation in alloc_pages_bulk_weighted_interleave()

Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 17:04:07 +0000 Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:

> syzbot reported a sleeping function called from invalid context splat
> in bucket_table_alloc().

That was quick (7 minutes!).  I was just looking at this.

> When rhashtable_insert_slow() rehashes the table under rcu_read_lock(),
> it calls bucket_table_alloc(..., GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN).
> If the bucket table allocation uses vmalloc, __vmalloc_node_range_noprof()
> invokes vm_area_alloc_pages() -> alloc_pages_bulk_mempolicy_noprof() with
> the passed GFP_ATOMIC flags.
> 
> If the current task has an MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE mempolicy,
> alloc_pages_bulk_weighted_interleave() is called and currently hardcodes
> GFP_KERNEL when allocating the temporary weights array, triggering
> a might_alloc() splat in atomic/RCU contexts.

2 years ago.  Why are we discovering this now?

> Pass the gfp flags (masked with GFP_RECLAIM_MASK to strip page-allocator
> zone modifiers like __GFP_HIGHMEM) received by
> alloc_pages_bulk_weighted_interleave() to kmalloc() instead of
> hardcoding GFP_KERNEL. Since the weights buffer is immediately
> initialized in full, kmalloc() is sufficient.
> 
> Fixes: fa3bea4e1f82 ("mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE for weighted interleaving")

I'll add cc:stable

> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -2688,7 +2688,7 @@ static unsigned long alloc_pages_bulk_weighted_interleave(gfp_t gfp,
>  	prev_node = node;
>  
>  	/* create a local copy of node weights to operate on outside rcu */
> -	weights = kzalloc(nr_node_ids, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	weights = kmalloc(nr_node_ids, gfp & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);

lgtm, thanks.

I wonder if we *really* need the local copy of state->iw_table. 
Perhaps with appropriate care we can directly use state->iw_table in
here.

How much would it hurt to expand the rcu_read_lock() coverage?

A local array of MAX_NUMNODES bytes isn't attractive - 1k of stack.

A spinlock-protected static array would work, if super-rare slowpath.

>  	if (!weights)
>  		return total_allocated;
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.