Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <facbfec3-837a-51ed-85fa-31021c17d6ef@gmail.com>
 <5c7455db-4ed8-b54f-e2d5-d2811908123d@leemhuis.info> <CAJuCfpH7BOBYGEG=op09bZrh1x3WA8HMcGBXXRhe6M5RJaen5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJuCfpH7t7gCV2FkctzG2eWTUVTFZD7CtD14-WuHqBqOYBo1jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2023070359-evasive-regroup-f3b8@gregkh> <CAJuCfpF=XPpPYqp2Y1Vu-GUL=RBj4fyhXoXzjBY4EKtBnYE_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2023070453-plod-swipe-cfbf@gregkh> <20230704091808.aa2ed3c11a5351d9bf217ac9@linux-foundation.org>
 <CAJuCfpE_WjRQoDT1XnvBghCH-kpqk+pfcBJGyDnK7DZLMVG5Mw@mail.gmail.com> <20230704142846.524daa14ff921ed7eb534594@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230704142846.524daa14ff921ed7eb534594@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:04:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFA3NudeyUyL65B3rnt-8sk1cnoh0uESYuS+LaDsGZu+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Memory corruption in multithreaded user space program while
 calling fork
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        Jacob Young <jacobly.alt@gmail.com>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 2:28=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation=
.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 13:22:54 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> =
wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 9:18=E2=80=AFAM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-founda=
tion.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 09:00:19 +0100 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org=
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks! I'll investigate this later today. After discussing=
 with
> > > > > > > > Andrew, we would like to disable CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK by def=
ault until
> > > > > > > > the issue is fixed. I'll post a patch shortly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Posted at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230703182150.2193578=
-1-surenb@google.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 t=
his
> > > > > patch is fixing 6.4 I didn't need to send it to stable for older
> > > > > versions. Did I miss something?
> > > >
> > > > 6.4.y is a stable kernel tree right now, so yes, it needs to be inc=
luded
> > > > there :)
> > >
> > > I'm in wait-a-few-days-mode on this.  To see if we have a backportabl=
e
> > > fix rather than disabling the feature in -stable.
> >
> > Ok, I think we have a fix posted at [2]  and it's cleanly applies to
> > 6.4.y stable branch as well. However fork() performance might slightly
> > regress, therefore disabling per-VMA locks by default for now seems to
> > be preferable even with this fix (see discussion at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/54cd9ffb-8f4b-003f-c2d6-3b6b0d2cb7d9@google=
.com/).
> > IOW, both [1] and [2] should be applied to 6.4.y stable. Both apply
> > cleanly and I CC'ed stable on [2]. Greg, should I send [1] separately
> > to stable@vger?
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230703182150.2193578-1-surenb@google.=
com/
>
> This one isn't sufficient for .configs which already have
> PER_VMA_LOCK=3Dy.  Using `depends on BROKEN' would be better.
>
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230704200656.2526715-1-surenb@google.=
com/
> >
>
> We're still awaiting tester input on this?

Yeah, and it seems to be negative... Anyway, I'll post a dependency on BROK=
EN.

>
> I think a clean new fully-changelogged two-patch series would be the
> best way to handle this.  Please ensure that the [0/2] intro clearly
> explains what we're proposing here, and why.
>
> Also, "might slightly regress" is a bit weak.  These things are
> measurable, no?  Because a better solution would be to fix 6.4.x and
> mainline and leave it at that.
>