From: yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <lkp@lists.01.org>,
Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:05:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6df79609-90eb-2f59-7e86-3532ac309a7a@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7c8d3752-6573-ab83-d0af-f3dd4fc373f5@huawei.com>
On 2020/3/17 9:41, yangerkun wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/3/17 1:26, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:07 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this
>>> thread "owns"
>>> + * the lock and is the only one that might try to claim the
>>> lock.
>>> + * Because fl_blocker is explicitly set last during a delete,
>>> it's
>>> + * safe to locklessly test to see if it's NULL. If it is,
>>> then we know
>>> + * that no new locks can be inserted into its
>>> fl_blocked_requests list,
>>> + * and we can therefore avoid doing anything further as long
>>> as that
>>> + * list is empty.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocker) &&
>>> + list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
>>> + return status;
>>
>> Ack. This looks sane to me now.
>>
>> yangerkun - how did you find the original problem?\
>
> While try to fix CVE-2019-19769, add some log in __locks_wake_up_blocks
> help me to rebuild the problem soon. This help me to discern the problem
> soon.
>
>>
>> Would you mind using whatever stress test that caused commit
>> 6d390e4b5d48 ("locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when
>> wakeup a waiter") with this patch? And if you did it analytically,
>> you're a champ and should look at this patch too!
>
> I will try to understand this patch, and if it's looks good to me, will
> do the performance test!
This patch looks good to me, with this patch, the bug '6d390e4b5d48
("locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter")'
describes won't happen again. Actually, I find that syzkaller has report
this bug before[1], and the log of it can help us to reproduce it with
some latency in __locks_wake_up_blocks!
Also, some ltp testcases describes in [2] pass too with the patch!
For performance test, I have try to understand will-it-scale/lkp, but it
seem a little complex to me, and may need some more time. So, Rong Chen,
can you help to do this? Or the results may come a little later...
Thanks,
----
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=922689db06e57b69c240
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/11/578
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-17 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-08 14:03 kernel test robot
2020-03-09 14:36 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 15:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-09 17:22 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 19:09 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 19:53 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 21:42 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-09 21:58 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 7:52 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-09 22:11 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 3:24 ` yangerkun
2020-03-10 7:54 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-10 12:52 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 14:18 ` yangerkun
2020-03-10 15:06 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 17:27 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 21:01 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 21:14 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 21:21 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 21:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-10 22:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 22:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-11 22:22 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-12 0:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-12 4:42 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-12 12:31 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-12 22:19 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-14 1:11 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-12 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-14 1:31 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-14 2:31 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-14 15:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-15 13:54 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 5:06 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-16 11:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-17 1:41 ` yangerkun
2020-03-17 14:05 ` yangerkun [this message]
2020-03-17 16:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-18 1:09 ` yangerkun
2020-03-19 17:51 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-19 19:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-19 19:24 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-19 19:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-19 20:10 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 22:45 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-17 15:59 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-17 21:27 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-18 5:12 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-16 4:26 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-11 1:57 ` yangerkun
2020-03-11 12:52 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-11 13:26 ` yangerkun
2020-03-11 22:15 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 7:50 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6df79609-90eb-2f59-7e86-3532ac309a7a@huawei.com \
--to=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®