Re: Fwd: Memory corruption in multithreaded user space program while calling fork

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

 



On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 11:44 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:27:19AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 11:08 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:53 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> > > Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 02.07.23 14:27, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > > I notice a regression report on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it:
> > > > >
> > > > >> After upgrading to kernel version 6.4.0 from 6.3.9, I noticed frequent but random crashes in a user space program.  After a lot of reduction, I have come up with the following reproducer program:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >> After tuning the various parameters for my computer, exit code 2, which indicates that memory corruption was detected, occurs approximately 99% of the time.  Exit code 1, which occurs approximately 1% of the time, means it ran out of statically-allocated memory before reproducing the issue, and increasing the memory usage any more only leads to diminishing returns.  There is also something like a 0.1% chance that it segfaults due to memory corruption elsewhere than in the statically-allocated buffer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With this reproducer in hand, I was able to perform the following bisection:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > See Bugzilla for the full thread.
> > > >
> > > > Additional details from
> > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217624#c5 :
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > I can confirm that v6.4 with 0bff0aaea03e2a3ed6bfa302155cca8a432a1829
> > > > reverted no longer causes any memory corruption with either my
> > > > reproducer or the original program.
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > FWIW: 0bff0aaea03 ("x86/mm: try VMA lock-based page fault handling
> > > > first") [merged for v6.4-rc1, authored by Suren Baghdasaryan [already CCed]]
> > > >
> > > > That's the same commit that causes build problems with go:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/dbdef34c-3a07-5951-e1ae-e9c6e3cdf51b@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Thanks! I'll investigate this later today. After discussing with
> > > Andrew, we would like to disable CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK by default until
> > > the issue is fixed. I'll post a patch shortly.
> >
> > Posted at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230703182150.2193578-1-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> As that change fixes something in 6.4, why not cc: stable on it as well?

Sorry, I thought since per-VMA locks were introduced in 6.4 and this
patch is fixing 6.4 I didn't need to send it to stable for older
versions. Did I miss something?
Thanks,
Suren.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux