[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1ee0e9fa2755f4ed58bd633a71f7632191338a48.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:24:50 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong@...nxiaosong.com>, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
neilb@...e.de, okorniev@...hat.com, Dai.Ngo@...cle.com, tom@...pey.com
Cc: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
huhai@...inos.cn, ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nfsd: convert the nfsd_users to atomic_t
On Thu, 2025-06-19 at 15:10 +0800, ChenXiaoSong wrote:
> Yes, nfsd_users is protected by the nfsd_mutex. But the following log
> confuse me, why were they printed in a very short period when crash?
>
> [24225.575708] nfsd: last server has exited, flushing export cache
> [24225.580242] NFSD: starting 90-second grace period (net f0000030)
> ...
> [24225.807458] NFSD: starting 90-second grace period (net f0000030)
>
> Why was callback_wq queued that it had already been freed? And a new
> callback_wq was created. I’ve added some new vmcore analysis to the link:
>
> https://chenxiaosong.com/en/nfs/en-null-ptr-deref-in-nfsd4_probe_callback.html
>
>
> 在 2025/6/18 19:50, Jeff Layton 写道:
> > Isn't nfsd_users protected by the nfsd_mutex? It looks like it's held
> > in all of the places this counter is accessed.
> >
>
I don't know, specifically.
4.19.90 was released more than 5 years ago, and I have no idea what
else you have in that kernel. If this is only reproducible there, then
there's not much we can do to help you. Can you reproduce this on
something more recent?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists