linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [btrfs] 05a37c4860: kmsg.BTRFS_error(device_vdd):failed_to_verify_dev_extents_against

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190111154545.GN17624@shao2-debian>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 23:45:45 +0800
From:   kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
To:     Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.de>
Cc:     lkp@...org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Sterba <DSterba@...e.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [btrfs] 05a37c4860:
 kmsg.BTRFS_error(device_vdd):failed_to_verify_dev_extents_against_chunks

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:39:45PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019/1/11 下午10:03, kernel test robot wrote:
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-7):
> > 
> > commit: 05a37c48604c19b50873fd9663f9140c150469d1 ("btrfs: volumes: Make sure no dev extent is beyond device boundary")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > 
> > in testcase: xfstests
> > with following parameters:
> > 
> > 	disk: 6HDD
> > 	fs: btrfs
> > 	test: btrfs-group1
> > 
> > test-description: xfstests is a regression test suite for xfs and other files ystems.
> > test-url: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git
> > 
> > 
> > on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 4G
> > 
> > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace):
> 
> For the LKP tests, would you please not bind all fstests test cases into
> one LKP test case?
> 
> That's pretty hard for us to locate the problem. not to mention there
> will be tons of generic tests, and new tests could easily screw up your
> existing result.
> 
> It will make more sense to generate test cases based on
> fstests/tests/btrfs/group, and save their result for each fstests test case.
> 

Thanks for your suggestion, we'll adapt the test cases.

Best Regards,
Rong Chen