linux-ext4 - Re: generic/418 regression seen on 5.12-rc3

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:15:06 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: generic/418 regression seen on 5.12-rc3

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:16:13PM -0400, Eric Whitney wrote:
> As mentioned in today's ext4 concall, I've seen generic/418 fail from time to
> time when run on 5.12-rc3 and 5.12-rc1 kernels.  This first occurred when
> running the 1k test case using kvm-xfstests.  I was then able to bisect the
> failure to a patch landed in the -rc1 merge window:
> 
> (bd8a1f3655a7) mm/filemap: support readpage splitting a page

Thanks for letting me know.  This failure is new to me.

I don't understand it; this patch changes the behaviour of buffered reads
from waiting on a page with a refcount held to waiting on a page without
the refcount held, then starting the lookup from scratch once the page
is unlocked.  I find it hard to believe this introduces a /new/ failure.
Either it makes an existing failure easier to hit, or there's a subtle
bug in the retry logic that I'm not seeing.

> Typical test output resulting from a failure looks like:
> 
>      QA output created by 418
>     +cmpbuf: offset 0: Expected: 0x1, got 0x0
>     +[6:0] FAIL - comparison failed, offset 3072
>     +diotest -w -b 512 -n 8 -i 4 failed at loop 0
>      Silence is golden
>     ...
> 
> I've also been able to reproduce the failure on -rc3 in the 4k test case as
> well.  The failure frequency there was 10 out of 100 runs.  It was anywhere
> from 2 to 8 failures out of 100 runs in the 1k case.
> 
> So, the failure isn't dependent upon block size less than page size.

That's a good data point.  I'll take a look at g/418 and see if i can
figure out what race we're hitting.  Nice that it happens so often.
I suppose I could get you to put some debugging in -- maybe dumping the
page if we hit a contended case, then again if we're retrying?

I presume it doesn't always happen at the same offset or anything
convenient like that.