linux-kernel - Re: XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2)

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:	Wed, 22 May 2013 19:53:55 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2)

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:09:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
 > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:19:46PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:22:52AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > >  > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:51:47PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  >  > > Tomorrow I'll also try running some older kernels with the same
 > >  >  > > options to see if it's something new, or an older bug. This is a
 > >  >  > > new machine, so it may be something that's been around for a
 > >  >  > > while, and for whatever reason, my other machines don't hit
 > >  >  > > this.
 > >  >  > 
 > >  >  > Another thing that just occurred to me - what compiler are you
 > >  >  > using?  We had a report last week on #xfs that xfsdump was failing
 > >  >  > with bad checksums because of link time optimisation (LTO) in
 > >  >  > gcc-4.8.0. When they turned that off, everything worked fine. So if
 > >  >  > you are using 4.8.0, perhaps trying a different compiler might be a
 > >  >  > good idea, too.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Yeah, this is 4.8.0. This box is running F19-beta. 
 > >  > I managed to shoehorn the gcc-4.7 from f18 on there though.
 > >  > Bug reproduced instantly, so I think we can rule out compiler.
 > >  > 
 > >  > I ran 3.9 with the same debug options. Seems stable.
 > >  > I'll do a bisect.
 > > 
 > > good news.  It wasn't until I started bisecting I realised I was still
 > > carrying this patch from you to fix slab corruption I was seeing.
 > > 
 > > It seems to be the culprit (or is masking another problem -- I had to apply
 > > it at each step of the bisect to get past the slab corruption bug).
 > 
 > That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The fix in the xfsdev
 > tree is a little different:
 > 
 > http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/xfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=52c24ad39ff02d7bd73c92eb0c926fb44984a41d
 > 
 > but I can't set how this makes any difference to the problem at all.
 > See my previous post about the fact that 0xa068 is actually a valid
 > mask and should not be tripping the assert....

Hmm, I did git bisect fs/xfs/, so maybe itit's something outside of that subdir
that's the cause. I'll start over on the whole tree once I'm done bisecting
another entirely different bug.

	Dave

--
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/