linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-sha1: RIP [<ffffffff802596c8>] iov_iter

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: <200803031538.35271.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:38:34 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	"Kevin Coffman" <kwc@...i.umich.edu>
Cc:	"Alexey Dobriyan" <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-sha1: RIP [<ffffffff802596c8>] iov_iter_advance+0x38/0x70

On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:41, Kevin Coffman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> 
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 09:01, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:11PM +0300,  wrote:
> >  > > > Are you reproducing it simply by running the
> >  > > > ftest03 binary directly from the shell? How many times between
> >  > > > oopses? It is multi-process but no threads, so races should be
> >  > > > minimal down this path -- can you get an strace of the failing
> >  > > > process?
> >  >
> >  > Speaking of multi-proceseness, changing MAXCHILD to 1, nchild to 1,
> >  > AFAICS, generates one child which oopses the very same way (in
> >  > parallel with generic LTP) But, lowering MAXIOVCNT to 8 generates no
> >  > oops.
> >
> >  Thanks, I was able to reproduce quite easily with these settings.
> >  I think I have the correct patch now (at least it isn't triggerable
> >  any more here).
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >  Nick
>
> Hi Nick,
> With this patch, I'm getting "bad data" errors while running the
> connectathon tests from a Solaris NFS client to my Linux server.  (The
> failing test writes a "big" file (1MB) and reads it back, verifying
> the data read back is correct.)  Let me know if I can provide more
> details.

Hmm, thanks for testing... Could it be caused by other bugs introduced
in the kernel you are testing? Is the failing test using writev to
write the file? Do you have any indication of the pattern of corruption?

Thanks,
Nick

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/