linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/73] 6.1.119-rc1 review

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: <4EA31082-AA71-4E14-B63D-A7AE2480ABA6@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:11:57 +0000
From: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-stable
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev"
	<patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds
	<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "patches@...nelci.org" <patches@...nelci.org>,
        "lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org"
	<lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com"
	<sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        "srw@...dewatkins.net" <srw@...dewatkins.net>,
        "rwarsow@....de" <rwarsow@....de>,
        "conor@...nel.org" <conor@...nel.org>,
        "hargar@...rosoft.com" <hargar@...rosoft.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org"
	<broonie@...nel.org>,
        "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/73] 6.1.119-rc1 review



> On Nov 23, 2024, at 2:25 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.119 release.
>> There are 73 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>> let me know.
> 
>> Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
>>    NFSD: Limit the number of concurrent async COPY operations
> 
> @@ -1782,10 +1783,16 @@ nfsd4_copy(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>        if (nfsd4_copy_is_async(copy)) {
> -               status = nfserrno(-ENOMEM);
>                async_copy = kzalloc(sizeof(struct nfsd4_copy), GFP_KERNEL);
>                if (!async_copy)
>                        goto out_err;
> 
> This is wrong. Status is success from previous code, and you are now
> returning it in case of error.

This "status =" line was removed because the out_err: label
unconditionally sets status = nfserr_jukebox.


> (Also, the atomic dance does not work. It will not allow desired
> concurency in case of races. Semaphore is canonical solution for
> this.)

I'm not certain which "atomic dance" you are referring to here.
Do you mean:

1792                 if (atomic_inc_return(&nn->pending_async_copies) >
1793                                 (int)rqstp->rq_pool->sp_nrthreads)
1794                         goto out_err;

The cap doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to make sure
that the pending value doesn't underflow or overflow. Note
that this code is updated in a later patch.

Naturally we have to address any issues in upstream first, so
please report issues and propose changes to
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org <mailto:linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org> . Thanks for the review!

--
Chuck Lever