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  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]
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 14:44:49 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject: Re: UBIFS and page migration (take 3)


Am 12.05.2016 um 13:49 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> Hi Richard,
> the series looks fine to me, but it fails to address the root cause:

Is this a Reviewed-by? :-)

> that we have an inherently dangerous default for ->migratepage that
> assumes that file systems are implemented a certain way.  I think the
> series should also grow a third patch to remove the default and just
> wire it up for the known good file systems, although we'd need some
> input on what known good is.
> Any idea what filesystems do get regular testing with code that's using
> CMA? A good approximation might be those that use the bufer_head
> based aops from fs/buffer.c

No idea how much is being tested.
I fear most issues are unknown. At least for UBIFS it took
years to get aware of the issue.
Thanks again to Maxime and Boris for providing a reproducer.

There are two classes of issues:
a) filesystems that use buffer_migrate_page() but shouldn't
b) filesystems that don't implement ->migratepage() and fallback_migrate_page()
   is not suitable.

As starter we could kill the automatic assignment of fallback_migrate_page() and
non-buffer_head filesystems need to figure out whether fallback_migrate_page()
is suitable or not.
UBIFS found out the hard way. ;-\

MM folks, do we have a way to force page migration?
Maybe we can create a generic stress test.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists