linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 16/17] block: use iomap for writes to block devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:06:50 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/17] block: use iomap for writes to block devices

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 04:22:01PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> I'm hitting this during booting:
> [    5.016324]  <TASK>
> [    5.030256]  iomap_iter+0x11a/0x350
> [    5.030264]  iomap_readahead+0x1eb/0x2c0
> [    5.030272]  read_pages+0x5d/0x220
> [    5.030279]  page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x131/0x180
> [    5.030284]  filemap_get_pages+0xff/0x5a0
> [    5.030292]  filemap_read+0xca/0x320
> [    5.030296]  ? aa_file_perm+0x126/0x500
> [    5.040216]  ? touch_atime+0xc8/0x150
> [    5.040224]  blkdev_read_iter+0xb0/0x150
> [    5.040228]  vfs_read+0x226/0x2d0
> [    5.040234]  ksys_read+0xa5/0xe0
> [    5.040238]  do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x80
>
> Maybe we should consider this patch:

As willy said this should be taken care of by the i_size check.
Did you run with just this patch set or some of the large block
size experiments on top which might change the variables?

I'll repost the series today without any chances in the area, and
if you can reproduce it with just that series we need to root
cause it, so please send your kernel and VM config along for the
next report.