linux-ext4 - Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:1914

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]

Message-ID: <2023051300-deploy-cable-9087@gregkh>
Date:   Sat, 13 May 2023 07:50:34 +0900
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Marcus Hoffmann <marcus.hoffmann@...ermo.de>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, famzah@...soft.com, jack@...e.cz,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:1914 - page_buffers()

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Marcus Hoffmann wrote:
> On 12.05.23 14:19, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Marcus Hoffmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 18:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, sorry, I didn't see it since it was in an attachment as opposed
> > > > to with an explicit [PATCH] subject line.
> > > > 
> > > > And at this point, the data=journal writeback patches have landed in
> > > > the ext4/dev tree, and while we could try to see if we could land this
> > > > before the next merge window, I'm worried about merge or semantic
> > > > conflicts of having both patches in a tree at one time.
> > > > 
> > > > I guess we could send it to Linus, let it get backported into stable,
> > > > and then revert it during the merge window, ahead of applying the
> > > > data=journal cleanup patch series.  But that seems a bit ugly.  Or we
> > > > could ask for an exception from the stable kernel folks, after I do a
> > > > full set of xfstests runs on it.  (Of course, I don't think anyone has
> > > > been able to create a reliable reproducer, so all we can do is to test
> > > > for regression failures.)
> > > > 
> > > > Jan, Greg, what do you think?
> > > 
> > > We've noticed this appearing for us as well now (on 5.15 with
> > > data=journaled) and I wanted to ask what the status here is. Did any fix
> > > here make it into a stable kernel yet? If not, I suppose I can still
> > > apply the patch posted above as a quick-fix until this (or another
> > > solution) makes it into the stable tree?
> > 
> > Any reason you can't just move to 6.1.y instead?  What prevents that?
> > 
> 
> We will move to 6.1.y soon-ish (we are downstream from the rpi kernel tree)
> Is this problem fixed there though? I couldn't really find anything
> related to that in the tree?

Test it and see!

And if you are downstream from the RPI kernel tree, my sympathies,
that's a tough place to be given the speed of it updating (i.e. not at
all...)

good luck!

greg k-h