lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRE: [PATCH 00/17] fs, btrfs refcount conversions
    Date

    > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:55:09AM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote:
    > > Now when new refcount_t type and API are finally merged
    > > (see include/linux/refcount.h), the following
    > > patches convert various refcounters in the btrfs filesystem from atomic_t
    > > to refcount_t. By doing this we prevent intentional or accidental
    > > underflows or overflows that can led to use-after-free vulnerabilities.
    > >
    > > The below patches are fully independent and can be cherry-picked separately.
    > > Since we convert all kernel subsystems in the same fashion, resulting
    > > in about 300 patches, we have to group them for sending at least in some
    > > fashion to be manageable. Please excuse the long cc list.
    >
    > Thanks, the patchset looks good to me, I'm going to add it to the 4.12 queue.

    Thank you very much!

    >
    > > These patches have been tested with xfstests by running btrfs-related tests.
    > > btrfs debug was enabled, warns on refcount errors, too. No output related to
    > > refcount errors produced. However, the following errors were during the run:
    > > * tests btrfs/078, btrfs/114, btrfs/115, no errors anywhere in dmesg, but
    > > process hangs. They all seem to be around qgroup, sometimes error visible
    > > such as qgroup scan failed -4 before it blocks, but not always.
    > > * test btrfs/104 dmesg has additional error output:
    > > BTRFS warning (device vdc): qgroup 258 reserved space underflow, have: 0,
    > > to free: 4096
    > > I tried looking at the code on what causes the failure, but could not figure
    > > it out. It doesn't seem to be related to any refcount changes at least IMO.
    > >
    > > The above test failures are hard for me to understand and interpreted, but
    > > they don't seem to relate to refcount conversions.
    >
    > I don't think they're related to the refcount updates so we'll address
    > them.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-03-13 11:56    [W:2.398 / U:0.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site