[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140825151156.GE20070@kvack.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:11:56 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <Elliott@...com>
Cc: Dan Aloni <dan@...nelim.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
Petr Matousek <pmatouse@...hat.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Revert "aio: fix aio request leak when events are reaped by user space"
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 03:06:12PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:
> Using this version of the patch, I ran into this crash after 36
> hours of scsi-mq testing over the weekend.
...
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> kcpu = this_cpu_ptr(ctx->cpu);
> kcpu->reqs_available += nr;
>
> while (kcpu->reqs_available >= ctx->req_batch * 2) {
This crash is not particularly useful, as that version of the patch was
buggy and could result in reqs_available getting corrupted (ie, it could
overflow), which could lead to the system getting stuck for a significant
amount of time in put_reqs_available(). In other words, the crash you
reported matches the known problem with that patch.
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists