Grammar mistake #308

jonatino · 2016-07-27T21:47:09Z

No description provided.

ctrlaltvikas · 2016-11-12T20:29:51Z

Where is the mistake?

ta2ozg · 2016-11-16T13:17:29Z

The update is must, not use "if name doesn't have". Actually, "if the name doesn't".

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/308/files#diff-6e489a0861c45e4484b7ea5b409e223e

NogradThGin · 2016-11-16T17:04:06Z

Is this really useful to create a pull request only for that such thing ?

ctrlaltvikas

Trivial grammar mistake.

The main complication from the RT patch set is that the RW semaphore locks change such that read locks on an rwsem can be taken only by a single thread. All other threads are locked out. This single thread can take a read lock multiple times though. The underlying implementation changes to a mutex with an additional read_depth count. The implementation can be best understood by inspecting the RT patch. rwsem_rt.h and rt.c give the best insight into how RT rwsem works. My implementation for rwsem_tryupgrade is basically an inversion of rt_downgrade_write found in rt.c. Please see the comments in the code. Unfortunately, I have to drop SPLAT rwlock test4 completely as this test tries to take multiple locks from different threads, which RT rwsems do not support. Otherwise SPLAT, zconfig.sh, zpios-sanity.sh and zfs-tests.sh pass on my Debian-testing VM with the kernel linux-image-4.8.0-1-rt-amd64. Tested-by: kernelOfTruth <kerneloftruth@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Clemens Fruhwirth <clemens@endorphin.org> Closes openzfs/zfs#5491 Closes torvalds#589 Closes torvalds#308

Automatically handle reference count on `File` instances.

There are two states for ubifs writing pages: 1. Dirty, Private 2. Not Dirty, Not Private The normal process cannot go to ubifs_releasepage() which means there exists pages being private but not dirty. Reproducer[1] shows that it could occur (which maybe related to [2]) with following process: PA PB PC lock(page)[PA] ubifs_write_end attach_page_private // set Private __set_page_dirty_nobuffers // set Dirty unlock(page) write_cache_pages[PA] lock(page) clear_page_dirty_for_io(page) // clear Dirty ubifs_writepage do_truncation[PB] truncate_setsize i_size_write(inode, newsize) // newsize = 0 i_size = i_size_read(inode) // i_size = 0 end_index = i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT if (page->index > end_index) goto out // jump out: unlock(page) // Private, Not Dirty generic_fadvise[PC] lock(page) invalidate_inode_page try_to_release_page ubifs_releasepage ubifs_assert(c, 0) // bad assertion! unlock(page) truncate_pagecache[PB] Then we may get following assertion failed: UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1683): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: 0, in fs/ubifs/file.c:1513 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 1683): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 CPU: 2 PID: 1683 Comm: aa Not tainted 5.16.0-rc5-00184-g0bca5994cacc-dirty torvalds#308 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x13/0x1b ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_releasepage+0x67/0x1d0 [ubifs] try_to_release_page+0x57/0xe0 invalidate_inode_page+0xfb/0x130 __invalidate_mapping_pages+0xb9/0x280 invalidate_mapping_pagevec+0x12/0x20 generic_fadvise+0x303/0x3c0 ksys_fadvise64_64+0x4c/0xb0 [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215373 [2] https://linux-mtd.infradead.narkive.com/NQoBeT1u/patch-rfc-ubifs-fix-assert-failed-in-ubifs-set-page-dirty Fixes: 1e51764 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>

There are two states for ubifs writing pages: 1. Dirty, Private 2. Not Dirty, Not Private The normal process cannot go to ubifs_releasepage() which means there exists pages being private but not dirty. Reproducer[1] shows that it could occur (which maybe related to [2]) with following process: PA PB PC lock(page)[PA] ubifs_write_end attach_page_private // set Private __set_page_dirty_nobuffers // set Dirty unlock(page) write_cache_pages[PA] lock(page) clear_page_dirty_for_io(page) // clear Dirty ubifs_writepage do_truncation[PB] truncate_setsize i_size_write(inode, newsize) // newsize = 0 i_size = i_size_read(inode) // i_size = 0 end_index = i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT if (page->index > end_index) goto out // jump out: unlock(page) // Private, Not Dirty generic_fadvise[PC] lock(page) invalidate_inode_page try_to_release_page ubifs_releasepage ubifs_assert(c, 0) // bad assertion! unlock(page) truncate_pagecache[PB] Then we may get following assertion failed: UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1683): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: 0, in fs/ubifs/file.c:1513 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 1683): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 CPU: 2 PID: 1683 Comm: aa Not tainted 5.16.0-rc5-00184-g0bca5994cacc-dirty torvalds#308 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x13/0x1b ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_releasepage+0x67/0x1d0 [ubifs] try_to_release_page+0x57/0xe0 invalidate_inode_page+0xfb/0x130 __invalidate_mapping_pages+0xb9/0x280 invalidate_mapping_pagevec+0x12/0x20 generic_fadvise+0x303/0x3c0 ksys_fadvise64_64+0x4c/0xb0 [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215373 [2] https://linux-mtd.infradead.narkive.com/NQoBeT1u/patch-rfc-ubifs-fix-assert-failed-in-ubifs-set-page-dirty Fixes: 1e51764 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>

[ Upstream commit 66f4742 ] There are two states for ubifs writing pages: 1. Dirty, Private 2. Not Dirty, Not Private The normal process cannot go to ubifs_releasepage() which means there exists pages being private but not dirty. Reproducer[1] shows that it could occur (which maybe related to [2]) with following process: PA PB PC lock(page)[PA] ubifs_write_end attach_page_private // set Private __set_page_dirty_nobuffers // set Dirty unlock(page) write_cache_pages[PA] lock(page) clear_page_dirty_for_io(page) // clear Dirty ubifs_writepage do_truncation[PB] truncate_setsize i_size_write(inode, newsize) // newsize = 0 i_size = i_size_read(inode) // i_size = 0 end_index = i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT if (page->index > end_index) goto out // jump out: unlock(page) // Private, Not Dirty generic_fadvise[PC] lock(page) invalidate_inode_page try_to_release_page ubifs_releasepage ubifs_assert(c, 0) // bad assertion! unlock(page) truncate_pagecache[PB] Then we may get following assertion failed: UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1683): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: 0, in fs/ubifs/file.c:1513 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 1683): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 CPU: 2 PID: 1683 Comm: aa Not tainted 5.16.0-rc5-00184-g0bca5994cacc-dirty torvalds#308 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x13/0x1b ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_releasepage+0x67/0x1d0 [ubifs] try_to_release_page+0x57/0xe0 invalidate_inode_page+0xfb/0x130 __invalidate_mapping_pages+0xb9/0x280 invalidate_mapping_pagevec+0x12/0x20 generic_fadvise+0x303/0x3c0 ksys_fadvise64_64+0x4c/0xb0 [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215373 [2] https://linux-mtd.infradead.narkive.com/NQoBeT1u/patch-rfc-ubifs-fix-assert-failed-in-ubifs-set-page-dirty Fixes: 1e51764 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

[ Upstream commit 3d501dd ] This patch is based on a detailed report and ideas from Yepeng Pan and Christian Rossow. ACK seq validation is currently following RFC 5961 5.2 guidelines: The ACK value is considered acceptable only if it is in the range of ((SND.UNA - MAX.SND.WND) <= SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT). All incoming segments whose ACK value doesn't satisfy the above condition MUST be discarded and an ACK sent back. It needs to be noted that RFC 793 on page 72 (fifth check) says: "If the ACK is a duplicate (SEG.ACK < SND.UNA), it can be ignored. If the ACK acknowledges something not yet sent (SEG.ACK > SND.NXT) then send an ACK, drop the segment, and return". The "ignored" above implies that the processing of the incoming data segment continues, which means the ACK value is treated as acceptable. This mitigation makes the ACK check more stringent since any ACK < SND.UNA wouldn't be accepted, instead only ACKs that are in the range ((SND.UNA - MAX.SND.WND) <= SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT) get through. This can be refined for new (and possibly spoofed) flows, by not accepting ACK for bytes that were never sent. This greatly improves TCP security at a little cost. I added a Fixes: tag to make sure this patch will reach stable trees, even if the 'blamed' patch was adhering to the RFC. tp->bytes_acked was added in linux-4.2 Following packetdrill test (courtesy of Yepeng Pan) shows the issue at hand: 0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 +0 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 +0 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0 +0 listen(3, 1024) = 0 // ---------------- Handshake ------------------- // // when window scale is set to 14 the window size can be extended to // 65535 * (2^14) = 1073725440. Linux would accept an ACK packet // with ack number in (Server_ISN+1-1073725440. Server_ISN+1) // ,though this ack number acknowledges some data never // sent by the server. +0 < S 0:0(0) win 65535 <mss 1400,nop,wscale 14> +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <...> +0 < . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 65535 +0 accept(3, ..., ...) = 4 // For the established connection, we send an ACK packet, // the ack packet uses ack number 1 - 1073725300 + 2^32, // where 2^32 is used to wrap around. // Note: we used 1073725300 instead of 1073725440 to avoid possible // edge cases. // 1 - 1073725300 + 2^32 = 3221241997 // Oops, old kernels happily accept this packet. +0 < . 1:1001(1000) ack 3221241997 win 65535 // After the kernel fix the following will be replaced by a challenge ACK, // and prior malicious frame would be dropped. +0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1001 Fixes: 354e4aa ("tcp: RFC 5961 5.2 Blind Data Injection Attack Mitigation") Reported-by: Yepeng Pan <yepeng.pan@cispa.de> Reported-by: Christian Rossow <rossow@cispa.de> Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205161841.2702925-1-edumazet@google.com Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Co-authored-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>

…r DMA mask (torvalds#308) Previously the driver did not configure the DMA mask, which caused dma_map_page() to fail on systems requiring bounce buffers. This resulted in errors such as: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 4000032 bytes), total 32768 (slots), used 128 (slots) dmatest: dma0chan3-copy0: result #1: 'src mapping error' ... The issue was resolved by explicitly calling dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(n)), so that both streaming and coherent DMA allocations operate within the supported address range. Bugzilla: http://e-andes.andestech.com/bugzilla5/show_bug.cgi?id=35837 Reviewed-on: https://gitea.andestech.com/RD-SW/linux/pulls/308 Reviewed-by: randolph <randolph@andestech.com> Reviewed-by: Mina Hui-Min Chou <minachou@andestech.com> Reviewed-by: Tim Shih-Ting OuYang <tim609@andestech.com> Co-authored-by: CL Wang <cl634@andestech.com> Co-committed-by: CL Wang <cl634@andestech.com>

Grammar mistake

adf7b85

ctrlaltvikas suggested changes Nov 16, 2016

View reviewed changes

nbdd0121 pushed a commit to nbdd0121/linux that referenced this pull request May 29, 2021

Merge pull request torvalds#308 from wedsonaf/file-object

739c1fb

Automatically handle reference count on `File` instances.

torvalds closed this Sep 22, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Grammar mistake #308

Grammar mistake #308

Uh oh!

jonatino commented Jul 27, 2016

Uh oh!

ctrlaltvikas commented Nov 12, 2016

Uh oh!

ta2ozg commented Nov 16, 2016

Uh oh!

NogradThGin commented Nov 16, 2016

Uh oh!

ctrlaltvikas left a comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Grammar mistake #308

Grammar mistake #308

Uh oh!

Conversation

jonatino commented Jul 27, 2016

Uh oh!

ctrlaltvikas commented Nov 12, 2016

Uh oh!

ta2ozg commented Nov 16, 2016

Uh oh!

NogradThGin commented Nov 16, 2016

Uh oh!

ctrlaltvikas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants