linux-ext4 - Re: Rare xfsqa test failure

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]

Message-ID: <4A8C1A04.1090501@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:28:04 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
CC:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Rare xfsqa test failure

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:07:05AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>> EXTENTS:
>>> (65-80): 60720-60735, (81-222 [uninit]): 1181574-1181715, (223-229): 1181716-118
>>> 1722
>>> debugfs:  
>>>
>>> So it looks like there's a race which can cause ext4 to somehow miss an
>>> i_size update.
>> Are you sure it is a failure to update i_size, or is it possibly an
>> fallocate that extends the block count beyond i_size?
> 
> Look at the EXTENTS report from debugfs; blocks 81-222 are
> uninitialized from an fallocate, but block 223-229 are initialized.
> 
> 	      	      		     	   - Ted

This was from test 013?

If so, that calls ltp's fsstress, which does not call fallocate nor
posix_fallocate.  It only does preallocation on xfs via the old
xfs-specific ioctl (though I suppose we should add it...)

-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html