linux-kernel - Re: [Resend PATCHv4 1/1] mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in purge_fragmented

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: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:41:34 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>,
	"zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	hailong liu <hailong.liu@...o.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	steve.kang@...soc.com
Subject: Re: [Resend PATCHv4 1/1] mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in
 purge_fragmented_block

On 06/12/24 at 01:27pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:00:14AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 2:16 AM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to bother you again. Are there any other comments or new patch
> > > > on this which block some test cases of ANDROID that only accept ACKed
> > > > one on its tree.
> > > >
> > > I have just returned from vacation. Give me some time to review your
> > > patch. Meanwhile, do you have a reproducer? So i would like to see how
> > > i can trigger an issue that is in question.
> > This bug arises from an system wide android test which has been
> > reported by many vendors. Keep mount/unmount an erofs partition is
> > supposed to be a simple reproducer. IMO, the logic defect is obvious
> > enough to be found by code review.
> >
> Baoquan, any objection about this v4?
> 
> Your proposal about inserting a new vmap-block based on it belongs
> to, i.e. not per-this-cpu, should fix an issue. The problem is that
> such way does __not__ pre-load a current CPU what is not good.

With my understand, when we start handling to insert vb to vbq->xa and
vbq->free, the vmap_area allocation has been done, it doesn't impact the
CPU preloading when adding it into which CPU's vbq->free, does it? 

Not sure if I miss anything about the CPU preloading.