linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION] 6.7.1: md: raid5 hang and unresponsive system; successfully bisected

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]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW5QYTjBvjAjf8SdcKmPGO20e5-p57n6af5FaXudSiOCmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:13:16 -0800
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, junxiao.bi@...cle.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Dan Moulding <dan@...m.net>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] 6.7.1: md: raid5 hang and unresponsive system;
 successfully bisected

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:07 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:
>
> On 21.02.24 00:06, Dan Moulding wrote:
> > Just a friendly reminder that this regression still exists on the
> > mainline. It has been reverted in 6.7 stable. But I upgraded a
> > development system to 6.8-rc5 today and immediately hit this issue
> > again. Then I saw that it hasn't yet been reverted in Linus' tree.
>
> Song Liu, what's the status here? I aware that you fixed with quite a
> few regressions recently, but it seems like resolving this one is
> stalled. Or were you able to reproduce the issue or make some progress
> and I just missed it?

Sorry for the delay with this issue. I have been occupied with some
other stuff this week.

I haven't got luck to reproduce this issue. I will spend more time looking
into it next week.

>
> And if not, what's the way forward here wrt to the release of 6.8?
> Revert the culprit and try again later? Or is that not an option for one
> reason or another?

If we don't make progress with it in the next week, we will do the revert,
same as we did with stable kernels.

>
> Or do we assume that this is not a real issue? That it's caused by some
> oddity (bit-flip in the metadata or something like that?) only to be
> found in Dan's setup?

I don't think this is because of oddities. Hopefully we can get more
information about this soon.

Thanks,
Song

>
> 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
> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
>
> #regzbot poke
>