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  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:   Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:00:58 -0500
From:   Eric Sandeen <>
To:     Dave Chinner <>, Jens Axboe <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Abdul Haleem <>,
        linuxppc-dev <>,
        linux-xfs <>,
        linux-next <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        chandan <>
Subject: Re: [linux-next][XFS][trinity] WARNING: CPU: 32 PID: 31369 at

On 9/18/17 4:31 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:28:55AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 09/18/2017 09:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 08:26:05PM +0530, Abdul Haleem wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> A warning is triggered from:
>>>> file fs/iomap.c in function iomap_dio_rw
>>>>     if (ret)
>>>>         goto out_free_dio;
>>>>     ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(mapping,
>>>>             start >> PAGE_SHIFT, end >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>>>>  WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
>>>>     ret = 0;
>>>>     inode_dio_begin(inode);
>>> This is expected and an indication of a problematic workload - which
>>> may be triggered by a fuzzer.
>> If it's expected, why don't we kill the WARN_ON_ONCE()? I get it all
>> the time running xfstests as well.
> Because when a user reports a data corruption, the only evidence we
> have that they are running an app that does something stupid is this
> warning in their syslogs.  Tracepoints are not useful for replacing
> warnings about data corruption vectors being triggered.

Is the full WARN_ON spew really helpful to us, though?  Certainly
the user has no idea what it means, and will come away terrified
but none the wiser.

Would a more informative printk_once() still give us the evidence
without the ZOMG I THINK I OOPSED that a WARN_ON produces?  Or do we 
want/need the backtrace?


> It needs to be on by default, bu tI'm sure we can wrap it with
> something like an xfs_alert_tag() type of construct so the tag can
> be set in /proc/fs/xfs/panic_mask to suppress it if testers so
> desire.
> Cheers,
> Dave.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists