linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: unbreak __percpu_counter

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:58:43 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...ionio.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: unbreak __percpu_counter_add()

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> Commit 74e72f894d56 ("lib/percpu_counter.c: fix __percpu_counter_add()")
> looked very plausible, but its arithmetic was badly wrong: obvious once
> you see the fix, but maddening to get there from the weird tmpfs ENOSPCs
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> ---
>
>  lib/percpu_counter.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- 3.13-rc8+/lib/percpu_counter.c      2014-01-15 09:53:27.768111792 -0800
> +++ linux/lib/percpu_counter.c  2014-01-16 14:58:54.156555308 -0800
> @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_
>                 unsigned long flags;
>                 raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
>                 fbc->count += count;
> -                __this_cpu_sub(*fbc->counters, count);
> +               __this_cpu_sub(*fbc->counters, count - amount);

Hammmm, you are right, thanks for the fix, and I really tested the patch
with reinserting module of 'null_blk' after lots of IOs, now I know the
reason:  the scale of my test is still too small to cover the slow path
in case of the batch of 1000000, and only the part in fast path is verified
to be OK.


Thanks,
-- 
Ming Lei
--
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/