linux-kernel - Re: Report 2 in ext4 and journal based on v5.17-rc1

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:   Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:15:38 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
        chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@...il.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com, bfields@...ldses.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        paolo.valente@...aro.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        jack@...e.cz, jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
        rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com, melissa.srw@...il.com,
        hamohammed.sa@...il.com
Subject: Re: Report 2 in ext4 and journal based on v5.17-rc1

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:26:23PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 09:42:37AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > 
> > All contexts waiting for any of the events in the circular dependency
> > chain will be definitely stuck if there is a circular dependency as I
> > explained. So we need another wakeup source to break the circle. In
> > ext4 code, you might have the wakeup source for breaking the circle.
> > 
> > What I agreed with is:
> > 
> >    The case that 1) the circular dependency is unevitable 2) there are
> >    another wakeup source for breadking the circle and 3) the duration
> >    in sleep is short enough, should be acceptable.
> > 
> > Sounds good?
> 
> These dependencies are part of every single ext4 metadata update,
> and if there were any unnecessary sleeps, this would be a major
> performance gap, and this is a very well studied part of ext4.
> 
> There are some places where we sleep, sure.  In some case
> start_this_handle() needs to wait for a commit to complete, and the
> commit thread might need to sleep for I/O to complete.  But the moment
> the thing that we're waiting for is complete, we wake up all of the
> processes on the wait queue.  But in the case where we wait for I/O
> complete, that wakeupis coming from the device driver, when it
> receives the the I/O completion interrupt from the hard drive.  Is
> that considered an "external source"?  Maybe DEPT doesn't recognize
> that this is certain to happen just as day follows the night?  (Well,
> maybe the I/O completion interrupt might not happen if the disk drive
> bursts into flames --- but then, you've got bigger problems. :-)

Almost all you've been blaming at Dept are totally non-sense. Based on
what you're saying, I'm conviced that you don't understand how Dept
works even 1%. You don't even try to understand it before blame.

You don't have to understand and support it. But I can't response to you
if you keep saying silly things that way.

> In any case, if DEPT is going to report these "circular dependencies
> as bugs that MUST be fixed", it's going to be pure noise and I will
> ignore all DEPT reports, and will push back on having Lockdep replaced

Dept is going to be improved so that what you are concerning about won't
be reported.

> by DEPT --- because Lockdep give us actionable reports, and if DEPT

Right. Dept should give actionable reports, too.

> can't tell the difference between a valid programming pattern and a
> bug, then it's worse than useless.

Needless to say.