Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression

[yangerkun]

On 2020/3/17 1:26, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:07 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +       /*
> > +        * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread "owns"
> > +        * the lock and is the only one that might try to claim the lock.
> > +        * Because fl_blocker is explicitly set last during a delete, it's
> > +        * safe to locklessly test to see if it's NULL. If it is, then we know
> > +        * that no new locks can be inserted into its fl_blocked_requests list,
> > +        * and we can therefore avoid doing anything further as long as that
> > +        * list is empty.
> > +        */
> > +       if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocker) &&
> > +           list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
> > +               return status;
>
> Ack. This looks sane to me now.
>
> yangerkun - how did you find the original problem?\

While try to fix CVE-2019-19769, add some log in __locks_wake_up_blocks 
help me to rebuild the problem soon. This help me to discern the problem 
soon.

> Would you mind using whatever stress test that caused commit
> 6d390e4b5d48 ("locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when
> wakeup a waiter") with this patch? And if you did it analytically,
> you're a champ and should look at this patch too!

I will try to understand this patch, and if it's looks good to me, will 
do the performance test!

Thanks