Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in set_task_ioprio

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 12/21/21 9:03 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:25 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/21/21 3:44 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:52 AM syzbot
>>> <syzbot+8836466a79f4175961b0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
>>>>
>>>> commit e4b8954074f6d0db01c8c97d338a67f9389c042f
>>>> Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>>>> Date:   Tue Dec 7 01:30:37 2021 +0000
>>>>
>>>>     netlink: add net device refcount tracker to struct ethnl_req_info
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this commit will be in the way of many bisections.
>>>
>>> Real bug was added in
>>>
>>> commit 5fc11eebb4a98df5324a4de369bb5ab7f0007ff7
>>> Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>> Date:   Thu Dec 9 07:31:29 2021 +0100
>>>
>>>     block: open code create_task_io_context in set_task_ioprio
>>>
>>>     The flow in set_task_ioprio can be simplified by simply open coding
>>>     create_task_io_context, which removes a refcount roundtrip on the I/O
>>>     context.
>>>
>>>     Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>>>     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211209063131.18537-10-hch@lst.de
>>>     Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>
>> There are only really 5 patches in between the broken commit and the one
>> that fixes it, and it only affects things trying to set the ioprio with
>> a dead task. Is this a huge issue? I don't see why this would cause a
>> lot of bisection headaches.
>>
> 
> I was saying that my commit was polluting syzbot bisection, this is a
> distraction in this report.
> (Or if you prefer, please ignore syzbot bisection)

Ah got it, yes makes sense.

> linux-next has still this bug in set_task_ioprio()

linux-next often trails by a few days, once it catches up hopefully
this will be behind us.

-- 
Jens Axboe