linux-kernel - Re: [mainline][BUG][PPC][btrfs][bisected 00801a] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/locking.c:71!

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:44:15 +0530
From:   Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Cc:     mpe <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        chandan <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        sachinp <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, josef@...icpanda.com,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [mainline][BUG][PPC][btrfs][bisected 00801a] kernel BUG at
 fs/btrfs/locking.c:71!

On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 11:09 +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> On 11.09.19 г. 11:00 ч., Abdul Haleem wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 13:39 +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>
> 
> <split>
> 
> >> corresponds to?
> > 
> > btrfs_search_slot+0x8e8/0xb80 maps to fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2751
> >                 write_lock_level = BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL;
> 
> That doesn't make sense, presumably btrfs_search_slot+0x8e8/0xb80 should
> point at or right after the instruction which called
> btrfs_set_path_blocking. So either line 2796, 2894, 2901 or 2918 .
> 
I might be calculating to wrong address, could you please have a look on
the obj dump for files I have sent (which are less than 2MB)
> > 
> > I have sent direct message attaching vmlinux and the obj dump for
> > ctree.c and locking.c
> > 
> 
> I just got a message from : InterScan Messaging Security Suite about
> some policy being broken and no vmscan.

Sorry, my vmlinux was above 28Mb.


-- 
Regard's

Abdul Haleem
IBM Linux Technology Centre