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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4ae3fd71-c22e-48b6-bc86-fa494a1841a6@gmx.com> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 09:50:44 +1030 From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com> To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Linux btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com> Subject: Re: qemu-arm64: CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES=y kernel crash on qemu-arm64 with Linux next-20241210 and above 在 2024/12/20 01:40, Dan Carpenter 写道: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:44:12AM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> 在 2024/12/19 06:37, Qu Wenruo 写道: >>> >>> >>> 在 2024/12/19 02:22, Naresh Kamboju 写道: >>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 at 17:33, Naresh Kamboju >>>> <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The following kernel crash noticed on qemu-arm64 while running the >>>>> Linux next-20241210 tag (to next-20241218) kernel built with >>>>> - CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES=y >>>>> - CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES=y >>>>> and running LTP smoke tests. >>>>> >>>>> First seen on Linux next-20241210. >>>>> Good: next-20241209 >>>>> Bad: next-20241210 and next-20241218 >>>>> >>>>> qemu-arm64: 9.1.2 >>>>> >>>>> Anyone noticed this ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Anders bisected this reported regression and found, >>>> # first bad commit: >>>> [9c1d66793b6faa00106ae4c866359578bfc012d2] >>>> btrfs: validate system chunk array at btrfs_validate_super() >>> >>> Weird, I run daily fstests with 64K page sized aarch64 VM. >>> >>> But never hit a crash on this. >>> >>> And the original crash call trace only points back to ext4, not btrfs. >>> > > Yeah. But it's in the memory allocator so it looks like memory > corruption. After the ext4 crash then random other stuff starts > crashing as well when it allocates memory. > >>> Mind to test it with KASAN enabled? >> > > Anders is going to try that later and report back. > >> Another thing is, how do you enable both 16K and 64K page size at the >> same time? >> >> The Kconfig should only select one page size IIRC. > > Right. We tested 4k, 16k and 64k. 4k pages worked. > >> >> And for the bisection, does it focus on the test failure or the crash? >> > > The crash. For the failure part, I got the reason, it's indeed the patch, where we call btrfs_check_chunk_valid() but fs_info->sectorsize is still in the default value (4096), not the real one from the superblock. Thus it will always report false alerts if the on-disk super block is not using 4K sectorsize. I'll fix it soon. But sorry I didn't see why the false alert is related to the crash, the only new memory allocation done in that patch is for a dummy extent buffer, which should always be freed. Anyway in the next version I'll get rid of the memory allocation completely. Thanks, Qu > > regards, > dan carpenter > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists