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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:01:41 +0000
Subject: [Bug 216529] [fstests generic/048] BUG: Kernel NULL pointer
 dereference at 0x00000069, filemap_release_folio+0x88/0xb0

--- Comment #5 from ---
On 22/09/27 11:40PM, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
> On 22/09/26 01:02AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 11:55:29AM +0000, wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hit a panic on ppc64le, by running generic/048 with 1k block size:
> >
> > Hmm, does this reproduce reliably for you?  I test with a 1k block
> > size on x86_64 as a proxy 4k block sizes on PPC64, where the blocksize
> > < pagesize... and this isn't reproducing for me on x86, and I don't
> > have access to a PPC64LE system.
> >
> > Ritesh, is this something you can take a look at it?  Thanks!
> I was away for some personal work for last few days, but I am back to work
> from
> today. Sure, I will take a look at this and will get back.
> I did give this test a couple of runs though, but wasn't able to reproduce
> it.
> But let me try few more things along with more iterations. Will update
> accordingly.

I thought I had updated this. But I guess I forgot to update on this mail

I tested this for quite some time in a loop and also gave it a overnight run,
but I couldn't hit this issue. I had kept low memory size guest, so that we
could see more reclaim activity (which I also ensured by doing perf trace to
if we are going over that path or not while test was running).

I am not sure whether this could be a timing issue or what. Maybe if you could
share your defconfig, I could give a try with that on my setup once.


You may reply to this email to add a comment.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists