From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] make sure that lock_for_kill() callers drop the locks in safe order
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:21:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4305138de599923591df7403aefc4d663f50324a.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjuOm+AGHtjF15Zx8cxJwYwbzJgi28EQ6KW=Ze-4YjN+g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 2026-04-10 at 10:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 at 09:27, Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Notice in rcu_read_unlock_special(), atomicity/preemption count is
> > checked in two ways:
>
> Yeah, I didn't go that deep ... That code is inscrutable.
>
> Raising a softirq looks pretty strangein there, since there's
> absolutely no reason to believe that the preemption-off region has
> ended before the softirq is triggered. It makes sense for the "we're
> in hardirq context", but it also does it for that (needs_exp &&
> !irqs_were_disabled()) case
>
> So then it depends on the softirq checking it *again*. That all seems
> a bit strange.
>
> But it looks like rcu_core_si() does do that, and then falls back to
>
> if (rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs())
> set_need_resched_current();
>
> and it feels like maybe the rcu_read_unlock_special() should just have
> done that itself instead of playing softirq games.
>
> Maybe it's some off optimization, but going through the softirq code
> doesn't _feel_ like it's the right thing to do.
>
> I don't know this code well enough to judge.
>
> Let's wait to see if Al's patch actually makes any difference. It
> *shouldn't* make any difference, and maybe it doesn't. No need to
> start chasing RCU bugs that may not even be there.
>
> Jeff?
>
> > @Jeff, just want to confirm, this UAF can be reproduced without
> > PREEMPT_RT=y, right?
>
> I haven't seen Jeff's config, but some of the syzbot reports that
> *may* be related have configs that look pretty normal and didn't have
> PREEMPT_RT.
>
>
I've not been able to reproduce the UAF at all.
It was possible to reproduce the hang that we were seeing by injecting
an mdelay() just after the cond_resched() in __dentry_kill(), but Al's
other series seems to have fixed that.
The UAF seems to be dependent on those hangs somehow, but we were never
able to get one to fire from a reproducer attempt. They just
occasionally pop up when these stalls occur.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-10 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-22 20:20 [PATCH][RFC] get rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-01-23 0:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-23 0:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 4:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 4:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 5:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 18:43 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 19:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 20:28 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] struct dentry: make ->d_u anonymous Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] dcache.c: more idiomatic "positives are not allowed" sanity checks Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] get rid of busy-waiting in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-04-02 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-02 22:44 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 22:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-02 23:16 ` Al Viro
2026-04-03 0:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-03 2:15 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 0:02 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 0:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-04 18:54 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 19:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-05 0:04 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 20:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Paulo Alcantara
2026-04-03 4:46 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 " Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] struct dentry: make ->d_u anonymous Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] dcache.c: more idiomatic "positives are not allowed" sanity checks Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] get rid of busy-waiting in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-04-09 16:51 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Jeff Layton
2026-04-09 19:02 ` Al Viro
2026-04-09 20:10 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-09 21:57 ` Al Viro
2026-04-09 22:38 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 8:48 ` [RFC][PATCH] make sure that lock_for_kill() callers drop the locks in safe order Al Viro
2026-04-10 11:18 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 11:56 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 15:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-10 15:57 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 16:27 ` Boqun Feng
2026-04-10 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-10 18:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 18:21 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2026-04-10 19:19 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 19:32 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 21:13 ` Calvin Owens
2026-04-10 21:24 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 22:15 ` Calvin Owens
2026-04-10 23:05 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 23:30 ` Calvin Owens
2026-04-11 0:51 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 17:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 18:26 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 18:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 18:52 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-04-10 19:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-10 20:24 ` Al Viro
2026-04-10 20:48 ` Al Viro
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=4305138de599923591df7403aefc4d663f50324a.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=max.kellermann@ionos.com \
--cc=neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org \
--cc=nik.borisov@suse.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pc@manguebit.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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