linux-kernel - Re: block/badblocks.c warning in 6.7-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 13:10:46 +0100
From:   "Linux regression tracking #update (Thorsten Leemhuis)" 
        <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux Block Devices <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux RAID <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux bcachefs <linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>, Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@...e.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
        Janpieter Sollie <janpieter.sollie@...net.be>
Subject: Re: block/badblocks.c warning in 6.7-rc2

On 29.11.23 09:08, Coly Li wrote:
>> 2023年11月29日 07:47，Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> 写道：
>>
>> I notice a regression report that is rather well-handled on Bugzilla [1].
>> Quoting from it:
>>
>>>
>>> when booting from 6.7-rc2, compiled with clang, I get this warning on one of my 3 bcachefs volumes:
>>> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 712 at block/badblocks.c:1284 badblocks_check (block/badblocks.c:1284) 
>>> The reason why isn't clear, but the stack trace points to an error in md error handling.
>>> This bug didn't happen in 6.6
>>> there are 3 commits in 6.7-rc2 which may cause them,
>>> in attachment:
>>> - decoded stacktrace of dmesg
>>> - kernel .config
>> [1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218184
> 
> It seems the improved bad blocks code caught a zero-size bio request
> from upper layer, this improper behavior was silently neglected before.
> It might be too early or simple to decide this is a regression,

Well, it's often better to add an issue to the tracking even if there is
a chance that it's not a real regression, as the issue might otherwise
fall through the cracks. But given...

> especially Janpieter closes the report for now.

...this I agree that this is likely not worth tracking, hence:

#regzbot inconclusive: maybe not a regression and report can not
reproduce it anymore

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you.