linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dax: dax_layout_busy

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: <20180813124602.GA26513@thunk.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 08:46:02 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     sandeen@...hat.com, Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dax: dax_layout_busy_page() warn on !exceptional

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:12:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > The generic/081 regression appears to be a device-mapper issue...
> 
> I'll see if this reproduces for me. Doesn't seem to be related to the DAX
> patches you caary though.

It does seem to be a DAX-specific failure though.

> > The generic/344 failure seems to be caused by a WARNING triggered in
> > the nvdimm code:
> 
> OK, apparently this is nothing new for you as generic/344 fails for you
> even with 3.17. But it should not :). I'll try to see if I can reproduce
> this in my test setup during more test runs (I don't remember seeing it
> during occasional runs I do) and debug it further.

Thanks!

In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't planning on letting these failures
prevent the patches from going upstream.  As you say, the generic/081
failure looks unrelated to ext4, and the generic/344 isn't a
regression.

						- Ted