linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/17] block: use iomap for writes to block devices

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:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:16:44 +0200
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/17] block: use iomap for writes to block devices

On 7/20/23 14:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 04:22:01PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> I'm hitting this during booting:
>> [    5.016324]  <TASK>
>> [    5.030256]  iomap_iter+0x11a/0x350
>> [    5.030264]  iomap_readahead+0x1eb/0x2c0
>> [    5.030272]  read_pages+0x5d/0x220
>> [    5.030279]  page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x131/0x180
>> [    5.030284]  filemap_get_pages+0xff/0x5a0
>> [    5.030292]  filemap_read+0xca/0x320
>> [    5.030296]  ? aa_file_perm+0x126/0x500
>> [    5.040216]  ? touch_atime+0xc8/0x150
>> [    5.040224]  blkdev_read_iter+0xb0/0x150
>> [    5.040228]  vfs_read+0x226/0x2d0
>> [    5.040234]  ksys_read+0xa5/0xe0
>> [    5.040238]  do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x80
>>
>> Maybe we should consider this patch:
> 
> As willy said this should be taken care of by the i_size check.
> Did you run with just this patch set or some of the large block
> size experiments on top which might change the variables?
> 
> I'll repost the series today without any chances in the area, and
> if you can reproduce it with just that series we need to root
> cause it, so please send your kernel and VM config along for the
> next report.

I _think_ it's been resolve now; I've rewritten my patchset (and the 
patches where it's based upon) several times now, so it might be a stale 
issue now.

Eagerly awaiting your patchset.

Cheers,

Hannes