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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180108104449.q6paee4u7zraqqiw@quack2.suse.cz> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:44:49 +0100 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@....com.cn> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, ebiggers@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz, zhong.weidong@....com.cn Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/mbcache: make sure mb_cache_count() not return negative value. On Mon 08-01-18 10:00:42, Jiang Biao wrote: > When running ltp stress test for 7*24 hours, vmscan occasionally emits the > following warning continuously: > > mb_cache_scan+0x0/0x3f0 negative objects to delete > nr=-9232265467809300450 > .... > > Trace info shows the freeable(mb_cache_count returns) is -1, which causes > the continuous accumulation and overflow of total_scan. > > This patch makes sure that mb_cache_count() not return a negative value, > which makes the mbcache shrinker more robust. Thanks for the patch. Couple of comments below. > Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@....com.cn> > CC: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> > CC: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> > CC: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> > --- > fs/mbcache.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/mbcache.c b/fs/mbcache.c > index b8b8b9c..c758458 100644 > --- a/fs/mbcache.c > +++ b/fs/mbcache.c > @@ -238,7 +238,9 @@ void mb_cache_entry_delete(struct mb_cache *cache, u32 key, u64 value) > spin_lock(&cache->c_list_lock); > if (!list_empty(&entry->e_list)) { > list_del_init(&entry->e_list); > - cache->c_entry_count--; > + /*Make sure c_entry_count is not zero before dec*/ The comment is useless, just delete it. > + if (cache->c_entry_count != 0) cache->c_entry_count > 0 would be more logical... > + cache->c_entry_count--; OK, but please also add: else WARN_ONCE(1, "mbcache: Entry count " "going negative!"); Also as I said in another email I'd be actually more interested in debugging how can entry count go to such huge value rather than trying to paper over it... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists