linux-kernel - Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:47:33 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending()


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Absent a small fix, and given that the big fix has a lot more testing than
> > any new patch might, in this case the quickie might be undesirable.
> > Particularly since posters here seem sure that code will be replaced in the
> > next version anyway, and lightly tested patch to obsolete code is actually
> > less conservative.
> 
> I have to agree. Especially as the "big patch" just removes the fragile code 
> that caused the problem in the first place. So in this case I do suspect 
> that the bigger patch ends up being the safer one.

Yeah, i agree - especially since the smaller patch is still pretty large (not 
a oneliner), plus it does not appear that the precise failure mode is fully 
understood either.

> But I obviously don't actually see the problem, so it would be good to get 
> confirmation that Christoph's patch actually fixes things first. Ingo, does 
> the one in this thread apply for you?

Yes, the three larger patches survived overnight testing with 300+ iterations 
and i did some other tests as well, which passed too. These are the patches i 
applied:

 a73dd720  writeback: remove writeback_inodes_wbc
 9f98c0fa  writeback: split writeback_inodes_wb
 79338d2a  writeback: simplify the write back thread queue

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/