linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] RCU-walk support for autofs

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:	Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:52:47 +0800
From:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	autofs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] RCU-walk support for autofs

On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 11:42 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> Great minds think alike.
> I have basically the exact same patch and I'm testing now.
> It probably should be folded into "autofs4: avoid taking fs_lock during
> rcu-walk".
> 
> It takes ages though, the test has two configurations to test and each
> one takes about 70 minutes.
> 
> fyi, my criteria for the test is if it runs through to completion once
> then that's essentially a pass. If not then there is a race that needs
> to be fixed before merge. If it fails on runs two or three then there's
> a hard to find race that needs attention but is not serious enough to
> block merging. I usually stop after three runs but if fails are seen
> later then, they too need to be resolved in the fullness of time.
> 
> The reason for this is that in heavy use sites we rarely see more than
> about three processes concurrently accessing mount points and the test
> run uses 10 client instances (currently on a 6 CPU machine) that all
> access the mount tree at the same time so that should be somewhat more
> pressure than is seen under heavy use.
> 
> And indeed this rule of has proven reliable so far.

I've run my test three times now.

The first time I had debug logging enabled. I disabled it for the second
and third runs as that sometimes makes a difference.

All three runs went through fine.

The only thing I noticed was that the test took a little longer (two and
a half to three minutes longer, of 70) to complete than without the
patch series but I've seen that sort of variation in kernels at
different times in the past.

So I think the series is fine and should be merged.
Please feel free to add any of my acked, reviewed and tested by to them.

Ian


--
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/