linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bdi: Fix another oops in wb

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:11:05 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        syzbot+4a7438e774b21ddd8eca@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi: Fix another oops in wb_workfn()

On Thu 14-06-18 06:04:04, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/06/14 1:45, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 13-06-18 09:25:03, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:21 AM Tetsuo Handa
> >> <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Since multiple addresses share bit_wait_table[256], isn't it possible that
> >>> cgwb_start_shutdown() prematurely returns false due to wake_up_bit() by
> >>> hash-conflicting addresses (i.e. not limited to clear_and_wake_up_bit() from
> >>> wb_shutdown())? I think that we cannot be sure without confirming that
> >>> test_bit(WB_shutting_down, &wb->state) == false after returning from schedule().
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >> That's _always_ true, btw. Something else entirely could have woken
> >> you up. TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE does not mean "nothing else wakes me", it
> >> just means "_signals_ don't wake me".
> >>
> >> So every single sleep always needs to be in a loop. Always.
> > 
> > Agreed and in my patch it actually is in a loop - the one iterating the
> > list of active writeback structures. If we get a false wakeup, we find the
> > same structure in the list again and wait again...
> 
> Indeed. I overlooked that wb = list_first_entry() will select same wb again
> if cgwb_remove_from_bdi_list() is not yet called. Well, we could update
> "(in which case we also wait for it to finish)" part or move the body of
> cgwb_start_shutdown() to cgwb_bdi_unregister() so that it becomes clear
> that false wake-up is not a problem in this case.

I prefer to keep the wb shutdown in a separate function but I've added some
comments to explain that.

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR