From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:47:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181017094745.GA23493@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181016181622.GF23044@vader>
On Tue 16-10-18 11:16:22, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 01:36:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 10-10-18 14:28:09, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 10-10-18 13:42:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> > > > > > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> > > > > > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> > > > > > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> > > > > > protecting the loop device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> > > > > > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> > > > > > can try running it. Review is welcome!
> > > > >
> > > > > Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be
> > > > worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I did run loop tests now and they ran fine. I can try converting the
> > > syzbot reproducers into something legible but it will take a while.
> >
> > So I took a stab at this. But I hit two issues:
> >
> > 1) For the reproducer triggering the lockdep warning, you need a 32-bit
> > binary (so that it uses compat_ioctl). I don't think we want to introduce
> > 32-bit devel environment dependency to blktests. With 64-bits, the problem
> > is also there but someone noticed and silenced lockdep (with a reason that
> > I consider is incorrect)... I think the test is still worth it though as
> > I'll remove the lockdep-fooling code in my patches and thus new breakage
> > will be noticed.
>
> Agreed, even if it doesn't trigger lockdep now, it's a good regression
> test.
>
> > 2) For the oops (use-after-free) issue I was not able to reproduce that in
> > my test KVM in couple hours. The race window is rather narrow and syzbot
> > with KASAN and everything hit it only 11 times. So I'm not sure how useful
> > that test is. Any opinions?
>
> I'd say we should add it anyways. If anything, it's a smoke test for
> changing fds on a loop device. You could add a note that the race it's
> testing for is very narrow.
OK, I'll post the patches later today.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-17 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 01/15] block/loop: Don't grab "struct file" for vfs_getattr() operation Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 02/15] block/loop: Use global lock for ioctl() operation Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 03/15] loop: Fold __loop_release into loop_release Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 04/15] loop: Get rid of loop_index_mutex Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 05/15] loop: Push lo_ctl_mutex down into individual ioctls Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 06/15] loop: Split setting of lo_state from loop_clr_fd Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 07/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down into loop_clr_fd() Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 08/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_get_status() Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 09/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_status() Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 10/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_fd() Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 11/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_change_fd() Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 12/15] loop: Move special partition reread handling in loop_clr_fd() Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 13/15] loop: Move loop_reread_partitions() out of loop_ctl_mutex Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 14/15] loop: Fix deadlock when calling blkdev_reread_part() Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 15/15] loop: Avoid circular locking dependency between loop_ctl_mutex and bd_mutex Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:19 ` [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-10 11:42 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-10 12:28 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 12:43 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-16 11:36 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-16 12:04 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-16 18:16 ` Omar Sandoval
2018-10-17 9:47 ` Jan Kara [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181017094745.GA23493@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=osandov@osandov.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox