linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 14/16] xfs: add xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit

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: <2a5688e8-88ef-4224-b757-af5adfca1be1@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 07:08:52 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz,
        cem@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 14/16] xfs: add xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit_max()

On 05/05/2025 06:25, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Ok so I even attached the reply to the WRONG VERSION.  Something in
> these changes cause xfs/289 to barf up this UBSAN warning, even on a
> realtime + rtgroups volume:
> 
> [ 1160.539004] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 1160.540701] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in /storage/home/djwong/cdev/work/linux-djw/include/linux/log2.h:67:13
> [ 1160.544597] shift exponent 4294967295 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int'
> [ 1160.547038] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 288421 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.15.0-rc5-djwx #rc5 PREEMPT(lazy)  6f606c17703b80ffff7378e7041918eca24b3e68
> [ 1160.547045] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.0-4.module+el8.8.0+21164+ed375313 04/01/2014
> [ 1160.547047] Call Trace:
> [ 1160.547049]  <TASK>
> [ 1160.547051]  dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x60
> [ 1160.547060]  __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x1bc/0x380
> [ 1160.547066]  xfs_set_max_atomic_write_opt.cold+0x22d/0x252 [xfs 1f657532c3dee9b1d567597a31645929273d3283]
> [ 1160.547249]  xfs_mountfs+0xa5c/0xb50 [xfs 1f657532c3dee9b1d567597a31645929273d3283]
> [ 1160.547434]  xfs_fs_fill_super+0x7eb/0xb30 [xfs 1f657532c3dee9b1d567597a31645929273d3283]
> [ 1160.547616]  ? xfs_open_devices+0x240/0x240 [xfs 1f657532c3dee9b1d567597a31645929273d3283]
> [ 1160.547797]  get_tree_bdev_flags+0x132/0x1d0
> [ 1160.547801]  vfs_get_tree+0x17/0xa0
> [ 1160.547803]  path_mount+0x720/0xa80
> [ 1160.547807]  __x64_sys_mount+0x10c/0x140
> [ 1160.547810]  do_syscall_64+0x47/0x100
> [ 1160.547814]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
> [ 1160.547817] RIP: 0033:0x7fde55d62e0a
> [ 1160.547820] Code: 48 8b 0d f9 7f 0c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 83 c8 ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 49 89 ca b8 a5 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d c6 7f 0c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> [ 1160.547823] RSP: 002b:00007fff11920ce8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000a5
> [ 1160.547826] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000556a10cd1de0 RCX: 00007fde55d62e0a
> [ 1160.547828] RDX: 0000556a10cd2010 RSI: 0000556a10cd2090 RDI: 0000556a10ce2590
> [ 1160.547829] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007fff11920d50
> [ 1160.547830] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000556a10ce2590
> [ 1160.547832] R13: 0000556a10cd2010 R14: 00007fde55eca264 R15: 0000556a10cd1ef8
> [ 1160.547834]  </TASK>
> [ 1160.547835] ---[ end trace ]---
> 
> John, can you please figure this one out, seeing as it's 10:30pm on
> Sunday night here?

I'll check it

thanks for your effort

I have known some ubsan red herrings
- I hope that this is not one of them ..