lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression
From
Date


On 2020/3/17 1:26, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:07 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> + /*
>> + * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread "owns"
>> + * the lock and is the only one that might try to claim the lock.
>> + * Because fl_blocker is explicitly set last during a delete, it's
>> + * safe to locklessly test to see if it's NULL. If it is, then we know
>> + * that no new locks can be inserted into its fl_blocked_requests list,
>> + * and we can therefore avoid doing anything further as long as that
>> + * list is empty.
>> + */
>> + if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocker) &&
>> + list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
>> + return status;
>
> Ack. This looks sane to me now.
>
> yangerkun - how did you find the original problem?\

While try to fix CVE-2019-19769, add some log in __locks_wake_up_blocks
help me to rebuild the problem soon. This help me to discern the problem
soon.

>
> Would you mind using whatever stress test that caused commit
> 6d390e4b5d48 ("locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when
> wakeup a waiter") with this patch? And if you did it analytically,
> you're a champ and should look at this patch too!

I will try to understand this patch, and if it's looks good to me, will
do the performance test!

Thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-17 02:41    [W:0.278 / U:5.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site