[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvBguKcNZk-p7sAtSuNH_7HfdCyYvo8Wh7X6P=hT=kPrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:36:11 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Michael Stapelberg <michael+lkml@...pelberg.ch>
Cc: fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kyle Sanderson <kyle.leet@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Still a pretty bad time on 5.4.6 with fuse_request_end.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:38 AM Michael Stapelberg
<michael+lkml@...pelberg.ch> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately not: when I change the code like so:
>
> bool async;
> uint32_t opcode_early = req->args->opcode;
>
> if (test_and_set_bit(FR_FINISHED, &req->flags))
> goto put_request;
>
> async = req->args->end;
>
> …gdb only reports:
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x000000a700000001 in ?? ()
> #1 0xffffffff8137fc99 in fuse_copy_finish (cs=0x20000ffffffff) at
> fs/fuse/dev.c:681
> Backtrace stopped: previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)
>
> But maybe that’s a hint in and of itself?
Yep, it's a stack use after return bug. Attached patch should fix
it, though I haven't tested it.
Thanks,
Miklos
View attachment "fuse-fix-stack-use-after-return.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1488 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists