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  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, 21 May 2019 23:27:21 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@...ernode.on.net>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc:     ltp@...ts.linux.it, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ext4 regression (was Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/105] 4.19.45-stable review)

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 21:52, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:58:15PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > Ted, any ideas here?  Should I drop this from the stable trees, and you
> > > revert it from Linus's?  Or something else?
>
> It's safe to drop this from the stable trees while we investigate.  It
> was always borderline for stable anyway.  (See below).
>
> > >
> > > Note, I do also have 170417c8c7bb ("ext4: fix block validity checks for
> > > journal inodes using indirect blocks") in the trees, which was supposed
> > > to fix the problem with this patch, am I missing another one as well?
> >
> > FYI,
> > I have applied fix patch 170417c8c7bb ("ext4: fix block validity checks for
> >  journal inodes using indirect blocks") but did not fix this problem.
>
> Hmm... are you _sure_?  This bug was reported to me versus the
> mainline, and the person who reported it confirmed that it did fix the
> problem, he was seeing, and the symptoms are identical to yours.  Can
> you double check, please?  I can't reproduce it either with that patch applied.

This bug is specific to x86_64 and i386.

Steps to reproduce is,
running LTP three test cases in sequence on x86 device.
# cd ltp/runtest
# cat syscalls ( only three test case)
open12 open12
madvise06 madvise06
poll02 poll02
#

as Dan referring to,

LTP is run using '/opt/ltp/runltp -d /scratch -f syscalls', where the
syscalls file has been replaced with three test case names, and
/scratch is an ext4 SATA drive. /scratch is created using 'mkfs -t ext4
/dev/disk/by-id/ata-TOSHIBA_MG03ACA100_37O9KGKWF' and mounted to
/scratch.

Please find full test log,
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/738661#L1356

And you notice dmesg log,
[   53.897001] EXT4-fs error (device sda): ext4_find_extent:909: inode
#8: comm jbd2/sda-8: pblk 121667583 bad header/extent: invalid extent
entries - magic f30a, entries 8, max 340(340), depth 0(0)
[   53.931430] jbd2_journal_bmap: journal block not found at offset 49 on sda-8
[   53.938480] Aborting journal on device sda-8.
[   55.431382] EXT4-fs error (device sda):
ext4_journal_check_start:61: Detected aborted journal
[   55.439947] EXT4-fs (sda): Remounting filesystem read-only

- Naresh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists