[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f5a6e7b-c779-861e-fde8-409ca8e2541b@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 10:11:11 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm: readahead: handle LARGE input to
get_init_ra_size()
On 12/29/20 10:01 AM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 12/23/20 2:50 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> What motivates this change? Is there any reason to think this can
>>> happen?
>> Spotted in the wild:
> I run 2 hardened Gentoo systems, a server and a desktop.
>
> I patched the server with this:
>
> mr-fox ~ # cat ubsan.patch
> --- linux-5.10.1.orig/mm/readahead.c
> +++ linux-5.10.1/mm/readahead.c
> @@ -310,7 +310,11 @@ void force_page_cache_ra(struct readahea
> */
> static unsigned long get_init_ra_size(unsigned long size, unsigned
> long max)
> {
> - unsigned long newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
> + unsigned long newsize;
> +
> + if (!size)
> + size = 32;
> + newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
>
> if (newsize <= max / 32)
> newsize = newsize * 4;
>
>
>
> and the issue did no longer occurred at the server (5.10.2).
>
> I did not patched the desktop system and the issue occurred still 3
> times since 21th of december (5.10.2/3)
Yes, that's the patch that I posted on 2020-DEC-22.
Looks like I should submit a real patch for that.
thanks.
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists