linux-ext4 - Re: generic/471 failing on linux-next -- KI?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220731225901.GY3600936@dread.disaster.area>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 08:59:01 +1000
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: generic/471 failing on linux-next -- KI?

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 02:16:34PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I was just doing a last test of ext4 merged with linux-next before the
> merge window opened, and I noticed generic/471 is now failing.  After
> some more investigation it's failing for xfs and ext4, with the same
> problem:
> 
>     --- tests/generic/471.out   2022-07-31 00:02:23.000000000 -0400
>     +++ /results/xfs/results-4k/generic/471.out.bad     2022-07-31 14:11:47.045330411 0
>     @@ -2,12 +2,10 @@
>      pwrite: Resource temporarily unavailable
>      wrote 8388608/8388608 bytes at offset 0
>      XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
>     -RWF_NOWAIT time is within limits.
>     +pwrite: Resource temporarily unavailable
>     +(standard_in) 1: syntax error
>     +RWF_NOWAIT took  seconds
>     ...
> 
> I haven't had a chance to bisect this yet, and for a day or two --- so
> I figured I would ask --- is this a known issue?

Might have something to do with this set of changes:

https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/c737af00-e879-fe01-380c-ba95b555f423@kernel.dk/

as it adds new places in the VFS that check for IOCB_NOWAIT.  Pretty
sure it triggers -EAGAIN on timestamp updates now (in
file_modified() calls), which is probably what is happening here....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com