Re: refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free with CIFS umount after scsi-misc commit ef2cc88e2a205b8a11a19e78db63a70d3728cdf5

From: Al Viro
Date: Sun Dec 08 2019 - 21:52:19 EST

On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 06:23:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 5:49 PM Arthur Marsh
> <arthur.marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This still happens with 5.5.0-rc1:
> Does it happen 100% of the time?
> Your bisection result looks pretty nonsensical - not that it's
> impossible (anything is possible), but it really doesn't look very
> likely. Which makes me think maybe it's slightly timing-sensitive or
> something?
> Would you mind trying to re-do the bisection, and for each kernel try
> the mount thing at least a few times before you decide a kernel is
> good?
> Bisection is very powerful, but if _any_ of the kernels you marked
> good weren't really good (they just happened to not trigger the
> problem), bisection ends up giving completely the wrong answer. And
> with that bisection commit, there's not even a hint of what could have
> gone wrong.

FWIW, the thing that is IME absolutely incompatible with bisection
is CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT. It can affect frequencies badly
enough, even in the cases when the bug isn't directly dependent
upon that thing.

I suspect that nonsense bisects spewed by CI bots lately (bisect on
x86 oops ending up at commit limited to arch/parisc, etc.) are at
least partially due to that kind of garbage...