[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANnVG6=u8drSyKhF9Gjd-Y-saN8gdOSOsmEJenyWXsQE9QYmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:23:07 +0100
From: Michael Stapelberg <michael+lkml@...pelberg.ch>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
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.
I confirm that the patch fixes the issue I was seeing. Thanks a lot!
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:36 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists