linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] netfs, cifs: Fixes to retry-related code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKPOu+8z_ijTLHdiCYGU_Uk7yYD=shxyGLwfe-L7AV3DhebS3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 12:26:17 +0200
From: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, 
	Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>, netfs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] netfs, cifs: Fixes to retry-related code

David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Here are some miscellaneous fixes and changes for netfslib and cifs, if you
> could consider pulling them.  All the bugs fixed were observed in cifs, so
> they should probably go through the cifs tree unless Christian would much
> prefer for them to go through the VFS tree.

Hi David,

your commit 2b1424cd131c ("netfs: Fix wait/wake to be consistent about
the waitqueue used") has given me serious headaches; it has caused
outages in our web hosting clusters (yet again - all Linux versions
since 6.9 had serious netfs regressions). Your patch was backported to
6.15 as commit 329ba1cb402a in 6.15.3 (why oh why??), and therefore
the bugs it has caused will be "available" to all Linux stable users.

The problem we had is that writing to certain files never finishes. It
looks like it has to do with the cachefiles subrequest never reporting
completion. (We use Ceph with cachefiles)

I have tried applying the fixes in this pull request, which sounded
promising, but the problem is still there. The only thing that helps
is reverting 2b1424cd131c completely - everything is fine with 6.15.5
plus the revert.

What do you need from me in order to analyze the bug?

Max