Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 9 Dec 2019 02:52:09 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@internode.on.net>,
        SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free with CIFS umount after
 scsi-misc commit ef2cc88e2a205b8a11a19e78db63a70d3728cdf5
Message-ID: <20191209025209.GA4203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <30808b0b-367a-266a-7ef4-de69c08e1319@internode.on.net>
 <09396dca-3643-9a4b-070a-e7db2a07235e@internode.on.net>
 <CAHk-=wjj8SQx4YzS8yw7ZJJKiVLBY0g=d8rCSyPCM=8Pzmz+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjj8SQx4YzS8yw7ZJJKiVLBY0g=d8rCSyPCM=8Pzmz+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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@internode.on.net> 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...