linux-kernel - Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

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]

Message-ID: <20140502230653.GK18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 3 May 2014 00:06:53 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:40:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:18:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > > There's more of the "delete from shrink list not owned by us" in select parent.
> > > Proposed patch appended.
> > 
> > Ahh. Clearly this needs more work before I pull.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> Besides, I want to put Miklos' "don't bother with RCU in shrink_dentry_list()"
> in there as soon as select_collect() has been dealt with.  I don't think
> that the currently posted patch for select_collect() is right, though -
> see my reply to parent posting.  Basically, I think we should treat "it's
> on the shrink list already" as "increment data->found and keep going".  IOW,
> 	if (on shrink list) {
> 		data->found++;
> 	} else {
> 		if (on lru list)
> 			d_lru_del
> 		if (refcount is zero) {
> 			d_shrink_add
> 			data->found++;
> 		}
> 	}
> 	if (data->found)
> 		ret = need_resched() ? D_WALK_QUIT : D_WALK_NORETRY;

While we are at it - BUG() in umount_collect() is probably a bad idea.
At that point we are holding ->s_umount, so it guarantees that a lot
of stuff from that point on will get stuck.  Starting with sync(2).
And I really doubt that damage from WARN() instead will be more...
--
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/