[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpF=XPpPYqp2Y1Vu-GUL=RBj4fyhXoXzjBY4EKtBnYE_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 00:45:39 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jacob Young <jacobly.alt@...il.com>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Memory corruption in multithreaded user space program while
calling fork
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 11:44 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:27:19AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 11:08 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:53 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> > > Leemhuis) <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 02.07.23 14:27, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > > I notice a regression report on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it:
> > > > >
> > > > >> After upgrading to kernel version 6.4.0 from 6.3.9, I noticed frequent but random crashes in a user space program. After a lot of reduction, I have come up with the following reproducer program:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >> After tuning the various parameters for my computer, exit code 2, which indicates that memory corruption was detected, occurs approximately 99% of the time. Exit code 1, which occurs approximately 1% of the time, means it ran out of statically-allocated memory before reproducing the issue, and increasing the memory usage any more only leads to diminishing returns. There is also something like a 0.1% chance that it segfaults due to memory corruption elsewhere than in the statically-allocated buffer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With this reproducer in hand, I was able to perform the following bisection:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > See Bugzilla for the full thread.
> > > >
> > > > Additional details from
> > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217624#c5 :
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > I can confirm that v6.4 with 0bff0aaea03e2a3ed6bfa302155cca8a432a1829
> > > > reverted no longer causes any memory corruption with either my
> > > > reproducer or the original program.
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > FWIW: 0bff0aaea03 ("x86/mm: try VMA lock-based page fault handling
> > > > first") [merged for v6.4-rc1, authored by Suren Baghdasaryan [already CCed]]
> > > >
> > > > That's the same commit that causes build problems with go:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/dbdef34c-3a07-5951-e1ae-e9c6e3cdf51b@kernel.org/
> > >
> > > Thanks! I'll investigate this later today. After discussing with
> > > Andrew, we would like to disable CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK by default until
> > > the issue is fixed. I'll post a patch shortly.
> >
> > Posted at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230703182150.2193578-1-surenb@google.com/
>
> As that change fixes something in 6.4, why not cc: stable on it as well?
Sorry, I thought since per-VMA locks were introduced in 6.4 and this
patch is fixing 6.4 I didn't need to send it to stable for older
versions. Did I miss something?
Thanks,
Suren.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists