linux-kernel - Re: hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption? (was: Re: dm-crypt barrier support is effective)

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]

Date:	Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:18:29 -0600
From:	Jon Nelson <jnelson@...poni.net>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jon Nelson <jnelson@...poni.net>,
	Matt <jackdachef@...il.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	dm-devel <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	htd <htd@...cy-poultry.org>, htejun <htejun@...il.com>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption? (was: Re: dm-crypt
 barrier support is effective)

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Jon Nelson <jnelson@...poni.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>> Yes, indeed.  Is this in the virtualized environment or on real
>> hardware at this point?  And how many CPU's do you have configured in
>> your virtualized environment, and how memory memory?  Is having a
>> certain number of CPU's critical for reproducing the problem?  Is
>> constricting the amount of memory important?
>
> Originally, I observed the behavior on really real hardware.
>
> Since then, I have been able to reproduce it in VirtualBox and
> qemu-kvm, with openSUSE 11.3 and KUbuntu. All of the more recent tests
> have been with qemu-kvm.
>
> I have one CPU configured in the environment, 512MB of memory.
> I have not done any memory-constriction tests whatsoever.
>
>> It'll be a lot easier if I can reproduce it locally, which is why I'm
>> asking all of these questions.
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>> One experiment --- can you try this with the file system mounted with
>> data=writeback, and see if the problem reproduces in that journalling
>> mode?
>
> That test is running now, first with encryption. I will report if it
> shows problems. If it does, I will wait until I have been able to see
> that a few times, and move to a no-encryption test. Typically, I have
> to run quite a few more iterations of that test before problems show
> up (if they will at all).
>
>> I want to rule out (if possible) journal_submit_inode_data_buffers()
>> racing with mpage_da_submit_io().  I don't think that's the issue, but
>> I'd prefer to do the experiment to make sure.  So if you can use a
>> kernel and system configuration which triggers the problem, and then
>> try changing the mount options to include data=writeback, and then
>> rerun the test, and let me know if the problem still reproduces, I'd
>> be really grateful.

Using 2.6.37-rc5 and data=writeback,noatime and LUKS encryption I hit
the problem 71 times out of 173.

-- 
Jon
--
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/