linux-kernel - Re: hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption? (was: Re: dm-crypt barrier support is effective)

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:	Sun, 12 Dec 2010 07:11:28 -0600
From:	Jon Nelson <jnelson@...poni.net>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jon Nelson <jnelson@...poni.net>,
	Matt <jackdachef@...il.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	dm-devel <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	htd <htd@...cy-poultry.org>, htejun <htejun@...il.com>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption? (was: Re: dm-crypt
 barrier support is effective)

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 04:18:29AM -0600, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> > I have one CPU configured in the environment, 512MB of memory.
>> > I have not done any memory-constriction tests whatsoever.
>
> I've finally been able to reproduce it myself, on real hardware.  SMP
> is not necessary to reproduce it, although having more than one CPU
> doesn't hurt.  What I did need to do (on real hardware with 4 gigs of
> memory) was to turn off swap and pin enough memory so that free memory
> was around 200megs or so before the start of the test.  (This is the
> natural amount of free memory that the system would try to reach,
> since 200 megs is about 5% of 4 gigs.)
>
> Then, during the test, free memory would drop to 50-70 megabytes,
> forcing writeback to run, and then I could trigger it about 1-2 times
> out of three.
>
> I'm guessing that when you used 512mb of memory, that was in effect a
> memory-constriction test, and if you were to push the memory down a
> little further, it might reproduce even more quickly.  My next step is
> to try to reproduce this in a VM, and then I can start probing to see
> what might be going on.

I'm glad you've been able to reproduce the problem! If you should need
any further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.


-- 
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/