linux-kernel - Re: Internal error xfs_trans

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, 2 Jun 2016 07:23:24 +0200
From:	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: Internal error xfs_trans_cancel

> posix03 and posix04 just emit error messages:
> 
> posix04 -n 40 -l 100
> posix04: invalid option -- 'l'
> posix04: Usage: posix04 [-i iterations] [-n nr_children] [-s] <filename>
> .....

I screwed that this up. I have patched my version of lockperf to make
all test using the same options names. Though forgot to send those
patches. Will do now.

In this case you can use use '-i' instead of '-l'.

> So I changed them to run "-i $l" instead, and that has a somewhat
> undesired effect:
> 
> static void
> kill_children()
> {
>         siginfo_t       infop;
> 
>         signal(SIGINT, SIG_IGN);
>>>>>>   kill(0, SIGINT);
>         while (waitid(P_ALL, 0, &infop, WEXITED) != -1);
> }
> 
> Yeah, it sends a SIGINT to everything with a process group id. It
> kills the parent shell:

Ah that rings a bell. I tuned the parameters so that I did not run into
this problem. I'll do patch for this one. It's pretty annoying.

> $ ./run-lockperf-tests.sh /mnt/scratch/
> pid 9597's current affinity list: 0-15
> pid 9597's new affinity list: 0,4,8,12
> sh: 1: cannot create /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor: Directory nonexistent
> posix01 -n 8 -l 100
> posix02 -n 8 -l 100
> posix03 -n 8 -i 100
> 
> $
> 
> So, I've just removed those tests from your script. I'll see if I
> have any luck with reproducing the problem now.

I was able to reproduce it again with the same steps.