linux-ext4 - [Bug 201685] ext4 file system corruption

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:   Mon, 03 Dec 2018 01:48:30 +0000
From:   bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 201685] ext4 file system corruption

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201685

--- Comment #178 from Sune Mølgaard (molgaard@...il.com) ---
Hi Theodore,

I am not much of a kernel developer, let alone and FS one, so your guesses
would be vastly better founded than mine.

I could imagine, though, that a combination of GCC version, .config and,
possibly, the creation time (kernel version-wise) of the FSs in question, could
create a sort of "cocktail effect". For my part, none of my FSs are < at least
a year old.

FWIW, I started seeing the problem specifically with 4.19.3 (4.19.0 being good,
and built with 8.2.0-7), but that was after skipping 4.19.[12].

I note that the first Ubuntu kernel-ppa kernel the be built with 8.2.0-9 was
4.19.1, so if my ongoing bisect ends without any triggering of the bug I see, I
shall try kernel-ppa 4.19.1 - if that exhibits the bug, then that further
points to GCC, but as you say, perhaps specifically for the Ubuntu kernels.

Now, as someone else stated somewhere, the only things that kernel-ppa patches,
are some Ubuntu-specific build and package structure, as well as .config hte
lst part being available at
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v4.19.1/0006-configs-based-on-Ubuntu-4.19.0-4.5.patch
.

As promised above, I have written the kernel-ppa team lead, Bradd Figg, and I
would expect him and his team to be better at pinpointing which combination of
GCC 8.2.0-9 and .config options might be problematic, but if they find that the
problem goes away with a GCC upgrade, they might opt for letting that be it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.