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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bug-201685-13602-7OPDxHFBCm@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Date:   Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:03:08 +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 #268 from Marc Burkhardt (marc@...nowledge.org) ---
(In reply to Rainer Fiebig from comment #263)
> (In reply to Guenter Roeck from comment #240)
> > As mentioned earlier, I only ever saw the problem on two of four systems
> > (see #57), all running the same kernel and the same version of Ubuntu. The
> > only differences are mainboard, CPU, and attached drive types.
> > 
> > I don't think we know for sure what it takes to trigger the problem. We
> have
> > seen various guesses, from gcc version to l1tf mitigation to CPU type,
> > broken hard drives, and whatnot. At this time evidence points to the block
> > subsystem, with bisect pointing to a commit which relies on the state of
> the
> > HW queue (empty or not) in conjunction with the 'none' io scheduler. This
> > may suggest that drive speed and access timing may be involved. That guess
> > may of course be just as wrong as all the others.
> > 
> > Let's just hope that Jens will be able to track down and fix the problem.
> > Then we may be able to get a better idea what it actually takes to trigger
> > it.
> 
> It would indeed be nice to get a short summary *here* of what happened and
> why, once the dust has settled.
> 
> It would also be interesting to know why all the testing in the run-up to
> 4.19 didn't catch it, including rc-kernels. It's imo for instance unlikely
> that everybody just tested with CONFIG_SCSI_MQ_DEFAULT=n.

As mentioned earlier:

it would be nice to have a definitive list of ciscumstances that are likely to
have the bug triggered so people can check if they are probably affected
because the _ran_ their systems with these setting and possibly have garbage on
their disks now...

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