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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <0487d7cc-b906-4a4a-b284-9c79700b4ede@paulmck-laptop> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:51:30 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> To: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> Cc: llvm@...ts.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, julia.lawall@...ia.fr, clm@...com, dsterba@...e.com, baptiste.lepers@...il.com Subject: Re: [paulmck-rcu:frederic.2023.12.08a 29/37] fs/btrfs/transaction.c:496:6: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_329' declared with 'error' attribute: Need native word sized stores/loads for atomicity. On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 06:20:37PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git frederic.2023.12.08a > head: 37843b5f561a08ae899fb791eeeb5abd992eabe2 > commit: 7dd87072d40809e26503f04b79d63290288dbbac [29/37] btrfs: Adjust ->last_trans ordering in btrfs_record_root_in_trans() > config: riscv-rv32_defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231209/202312091837.cKaPw0Tf-lkp@intel.com/config) > compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 4a5ac14ee968ff0ad5d2cc1ffa0299048db4c88a) > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231209/202312091837.cKaPw0Tf-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202312091837.cKaPw0Tf-lkp@intel.com/ > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > warning: unknown warning option '-Wpacked-not-aligned'; did you mean '-Wpacked-non-pod'? [-Wunknown-warning-option] > warning: unknown warning option '-Wstringop-truncation'; did you mean '-Wstring-concatenation'? [-Wunknown-warning-option] > warning: unknown warning option '-Wmaybe-uninitialized'; did you mean '-Wuninitialized'? [-Wunknown-warning-option] > >> fs/btrfs/transaction.c:496:6: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_329' declared with 'error' attribute: Need native word sized stores/loads for atomicity. > 496 | if (smp_load_acquire(&root->last_trans) == trans->transid && /* ^^^ */ > | ^ Ooooh!!! :-/ >From what I can see, the current code can tear this load on 32-bit systems, which can result in bad comparisons and then in failure to wait for a partially complete transaction. So is btrfs actually supported on 32-bit systems? If not, would the following patch be appropriate? If btrfs is to be supported on 32-bit systems, from what I can see some major surgery is required, even if a 32-bit counter is wrap-safe for this particular type of transaction. (But SSDs? In-memory btrfs filesystems?) Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig index 4fb925e8c981..4d56158c34f9 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig +++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ config BTRFS_FS select RAID6_PQ select XOR_BLOCKS depends on PAGE_SIZE_LESS_THAN_256KB + depends on 64BIT help Btrfs is a general purpose copy-on-write filesystem with extents,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists