linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.19-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]

Message-ID: <CA+icZUWf=qGD2akxozWHp3VQQDPpLJuMMB-UuY+a+L-unV0QnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:25:39 +0100
From:	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc3

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 12:01:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:18:04AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> > >> [   88.028739]  [<ffffffff8124433f>] aio_read_events+0x4f/0x2d0
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Ah, that one. Chris Mason and Kent Overstreet were looking at that one.
>> > > I'm not touching the AIO code either ;-)
>> >
>> > I know, I was so excited when I see nearly the same output.
>> >
>> > Can you tell me why people see "similiar" problems in different areas?
>>
>> Because the debug check is new :-) It's a pattern that should not be
>> used but mostly works most of the times.
>>
>> > [  181.397024] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2872 at kernel/sched/core.c:7303
>> > __might_sleep+0xbd/0xd0()
>> > [  181.397028] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1
>> > set at [<ffffffff810b83bd>] prepare_to_wait_event+0x5d/0x110
>> >
>> > With similiar buzzwords... namely...
>> >
>> > mutex_lock_nested
>> > prepare_to_wait(_event)
>> > __might_sleep
>> >
>> > I am asking myself... Where is the real root cause - in sched/core?
>> > Fix one single place VS. fix the impact at several other places?
>>
>> No, the root cause is nesting sleep primitives, this is not fixable in
>> the one place, both prepare_to_wait and mutex_lock are using
>> task_struct::state, they have to, no way around it.
>
> No, it's completely possible to construct a prepare_to_wait() that doesn't
> require messing with the task state. Had it for years.
>
> http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git/log/?h=aio_ring_fix

I am just rebuilding a new kernel with "aio_ring_fix" included - I
have tested this alread with loop-mq and it made the call-trace in aio
go away.


Jut curious...
How would a patch look like a patch to fix the sched-fanotify issue
with a conversion to "closure waitlist"?

Thanks.

- Sedat -
--
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/