Re: WARNING in percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/22/19 10:48 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 9:38 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> With the mutex change in, I can trigger it in a second or so. Just ran
>> the reproducer with that change reverted, and I'm not seeing any badness.
>> So I do wonder if the bisect results are accurate?
> 
> Looking at the syzbot report, it's syzbot being confused.
> 
> The actual WARNING in percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm() only happens with
> recent kernels.
> 
> But then syzbot mixes it up with a completely different bug:
> 
>    crash: BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
>    BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
> 
> and for some reason decides that *that* bug is the same thing entirely.
> 
> So yeah, I think the simple percpu_ref_is_dying() check is sufficient,
> and that the syzbot bisection is completely bogus.

Ah good, that makes me feel better. I'll queue the fix up, thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux