linux-kernel - Re: possible 6.6 regression: Deadlock involving super

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]

Message-ID: <20240321-ruinen-exhumieren-32b9e3fba6fb@brauner>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:27:10 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Donald Buczek <buczek@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, it+linux@...gen.mpg.de
Subject: Re: possible 6.6 regression: Deadlock involving super_lock()

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:15:04AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we have a set of 6 systems with similar usage patterns which ran on
> 5.15 kernels for over a year.  Only two weeks after we've switched one
> of the systems from a 5.15 kernel to a 6.6 kernel, it went into a
> deadlock. I'm aware that I don't have enough information that this
> could be analyzed, but I though I drop it here anyway, because the
> deadlock seems to involve the locking of a superblock and I've seen
> that some changes in that area went into 6.6. Maybe someone has an
> idea or suggestions for further inspection if this happens the next
> time.

Ok, I'll take a look. It might take a little.