linux-ext4 - Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new

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: <4ED380DC.3030707@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:38:52 +0300
From:	Alexander Zhavnerchik <alex.vizor@...il.com>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:	adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new_inode+0x34/0x59()

Hi Ted,

Unfortunately my laptop died today and I can't retest this issue. I'll 
provide more information once and if I repair it.

Thanks,
Alex

On 28.11.2011 00:34, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:24:03PM +0300, Alex wrote:
>> BTW, after last resume from disk fs was corrupted but fsck managed
>> to fix this error. So I think severity of this issue should be
>> raised.
> Can you reproduce this reliably?  What was running at the time of the s2disk?
>
> What appears to be going on is that insert_inode_locked() is failing
> at fs/ext4/ialloc.c:887, probably because there's another inode with
> that inode number already on the superblock's hash list.  The error
> codepath if insert_inode_locked() fail is incorrect; it's going to
> fail_drop, which tries dropping the inode's dquot (but we haven't
> calle ddquot_initialize)inode) yet) and calls unlock_new_inode(), but
> I_NEW hasn't been set because insert_inode_locked().
>
> So the warning is easy to fix; we just need to have it jump to fail
> instead of fail_drop.  But the bigger issue is why did
> insert_inode_locked() failed in the first place.
>
> Did this error happen *right* after the system resumed, or did some
> amount of time pass before the warning triggered?  This could have
> happened because the in-memory (or possibly on-disk) copy of the inode
> allocation bitmap has gotten corrupted, for example.
>
> What was the nature of the file system corruption which e2fsck decided
> that it need to correct?
>
> Regards,
>
> 						- Ted

--
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