linux-kernel - Re: upstream kernel crashes

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:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 04:28:29 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: upstream kernel crashes

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 01:15:27AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-08-15 03:51:34 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > It is possible that GCP gets confused if ring size is smaller than the
> > device maximum simply because no one did it in the past.
> > 
> > So I pushed just the revert of 762faee5a267 to the test branch.
> > Could you give it a spin?
> 
> Seems to fix the issue, at least to the extent I can determine at 1am... :)
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Andres Freund

So you tested this:

commit 13df5a7eaeb22561d39354b576bc98a7e2c389f9 (HEAD, kernel.org/test)
Author: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
Date:   Mon Aug 15 03:44:38 2022 -0400

    Revert "virtio_net: set the default max ring size by find_vqs()"
    
    This reverts commit 762faee5a2678559d3dc09d95f8f2c54cd0466a7.
    
    Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>

and it fixes both issues right? No crashes no networking issue?

Just making sure before I send this upstream as a stop-gap.

We need to figure out what is going on since I think there's a GCP
hypervisor bug that we need to find a way to detect and work around but
that can wait.

-- 
MST