linux-ext4 - Re: [v4.14-rc1 regression] ext4 failed fstests generic/233 quota test

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:   Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:43:23 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [v4.14-rc1 regression] ext4 failed fstests generic/233 quota test

Hi Eryu,

On Sun 08-10-17 13:42:36, Eryu Guan wrote:
> After generic/232 failure has been reported and resolved[1], I still
> could see fstests generic/233 failure on ext4 with v4.14-rc3 kernel.
> This is not 100% reproduced (block usage needs to exceed soft limit) but
> reliably.
> 
>  seed = S
>  Comparing user usage
> -Comparing group usage
> +4c4
> +< #1001     +-   32064   32000   32000            998  1000  1000       
> +---
> +> #1001     +-   32064   32000   32000  7days     998  1000  1000
> 
> Grace time was not printed by repquota right after the fsstress run when
> we exceeded the block soft limit, and only printed after a quotacheck
> was run.  With v4.13 kernel, block grace time could be printed
> immediately after the fsstress run.

Well, I'd rather interpret the results as "the grace time didn't get set by
the failing kernel, only quotacheck would set it". This configuration with
softlimit == hardlimit is a bit ambiguous (as effectively softlimit and
grace time are unused) and I might have shortcut setting of grace time in
this case somewhere (which would be harmless). But still it warrants closer
investigation. I'll have a look.

> git bisect pointed the first bad to commit 7b9ca4c61bc2 ("quota: Reduce
> contention on dq_data_lock"). And I've confirmed the bisection result by
> converting the commit in question and running generic/233 for 20
> iterations without a failure.

Thanks for digging into this!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR