Hi,
when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the
following warning and bug message. The image can be found here
www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/btrfs.2.img.bck.bz2
[ 297.406152] device fsid e14cf01de423381a-4bd40b603870018a <6>devid
2147483649 transid 9 /dev/loop0
[ 297.411937] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 297.412207] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:805
read_tree_block+0x4c/0x58()
[ 297.412348] Hardware name: System Name
[ 297.412485] Modules linked in:
[ 297.412684] Pid: 5144, comm: mount Tainted: G W
2.6.29-rc1-00195-g1df11ad #200
[ 297.412872] Call Trace:
[ 297.413027] [<c0123a8d>] warn_slowpath+0x79/0x8f
[ 297.413251] [<c013413d>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x48
[ 297.413395] [<c013f692>] ? print_lock_contention_bug+0x11/0xb2
[ 297.413575] [<c04ad9b6>] ? btrfs_num_copies+0x20/0xba
[ 297.413716] [<c07c6b0e>] ? _spin_unlock+0x2c/0x41
[ 297.413869] [<c04ada46>] ? btrfs_num_copies+0xb0/0xba
[ 297.414007] [<c048f4b5>] ? btree_read_extent_buffer_pages+0x7f/0x95
[ 297.414204] [<c048f7f8>] read_tree_block+0x4c/0x58
[ 297.414339] [<c049264a>] open_ctree+0xa51/0xeff
[ 297.414493] [<c01cc814>] ? disk_name+0x2a/0x6c
[ 297.414624] [<c050d6e7>] ? strlcpy+0x17/0x48
[ 297.414770] [<c047b7e5>] btrfs_get_sb+0x20c/0x3d3
[ 297.414913] [<c017888e>] ? kstrdup+0x2f/0x51
[ 297.415110] [<c0191558>] vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b
[ 297.415242] [<c01915e1>] do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf
[ 297.415401] [<c01a2c78>] do_mount+0x5cc/0x609
[ 297.415533] [<c07c6db3>] ? lock_kernel+0x19/0x8c
[ 297.415679] [<c01a2d0b>] ? sys_mount+0x56/0xa0
[ 297.415809] [<c01a2d1e>] sys_mount+0x69/0xa0
[ 297.415961] [<c0102ea1>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
[ 297.416145] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da24 ]---
[ 297.416621] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
000001f4
[ 297.416915] IP: [<c01addd2>] bio_get_nr_vecs+0xf/0x3f
[ 297.417199] *pde = 00000000
[ 297.417398] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
[ 297.417706] last sysfs file: /sys/block/ram9/range
[ 297.417908] Modules linked in:
[ 297.418086]
[ 297.418161] Pid: 5144, comm: mount Tainted: G W
(2.6.29-rc1-00195-g1df11ad #200) System Name
[ 297.418161] EIP: 0060:[<c01addd2>] EFLAGS: 00010246 CPU: 0
[ 297.418161] EIP is at bio_get_nr_vecs+0xf/0x3f
[ 297.418161] EAX: 00000000 EBX: 00000000 ECX: c12fe0c0 EDX: c48b8040
[ 297.418161] ESI: 00000100 EDI: 00000000 EBP: cb38bc68 ESP: cb38bc44
[ 297.418161] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0033 SS: 0068
[ 297.418161] Process mount (pid: 5144, ti=cb38b000 task=c14e0000
task.ti=cb38b000)
[ 297.418161] Stack:
[ 297.418161] c04a7ed6 00000001 c12fe0c0 c48b8040 00000000 00001000
cb38bda4 00000000
[ 297.418161] c82f31c0 cb38bd40 c04a9af4 0000e028 00000000 00001000
00000000 c807c3e0
[ 297.418161] cb38bda8 ffffe3fb c04aaf4a 00000000 00000000 00000000
cf53c3f0 00000fff
[ 297.418161] Call Trace:
[ 297.418161] [<c04a7ed6>] ? submit_extent_page+0xea/0x190
[ 297.418161] [<c04a9af4>] ? __extent_read_full_page+0x61d/0x6a0
[ 297.418161] [<c04aaf4a>] ? end_bio_extent_readpage+0x0/0x205
[ 297.418161] [<c0491123>] ? btree_get_extent+0x0/0x16c
[ 297.418161] [<c04a8467>] ? test_range_bit+0xd5/0xdf
[ 297.418161] [<c04aa4c7>] ? read_extent_buffer_pages+0x274/0x3aa
[ 297.418161] [<c07c6b0e>] ? _spin_unlock+0x2c/0x41
[ 297.418161] [<c04acda8>] ? alloc_extent_buffer+0x296/0x348
[ 297.418161] [<c048f477>] ? btree_read_extent_buffer_pages+0x41/0x95
[ 297.418161] [<c0491123>] ? btree_get_extent+0x0/0x16c
[ 297.418161] [<c048f7da>] ? read_tree_block+0x2e/0x58
[ 297.418161] [<c0492712>] ? open_ctree+0xb19/0xeff
[ 297.418161] [<c050d6e7>] ? strlcpy+0x17/0x48
[ 297.418161] [<c047b7e5>] ? btrfs_get_sb+0x20c/0x3d3
[ 297.418161] [<c017888e>] ? kstrdup+0x2f/0x51
[ 297.418161] [<c0191558>] ? vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b
[ 297.418161] [<c01915e1>] ? do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf
[ 297.418161] [<c01a2c78>] ? do_mount+0x5cc/0x609
[ 297.418161] [<c07c6db3>] ? lock_kernel+0x19/0x8c
[ 297.418161] [<c01a2d0b>] ? sys_mount+0x56/0xa0
[ 297.418161] [<c01a2d1e>] ? sys_mount+0x69/0xa0
[ 297.418161] [<c0102ea1>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
[ 297.418161] Code: 39 45 e8 7c a4 8b 45 e4 e8 81 ec ff ff 89 f8 e8 c8
ec ff ff 83 c4 20 5b 5e 5f 5d c3 55 89 e5 0f 1f 44 00 00 8b 80 bc 00 00
00 5d <8b> 88 f4 01 00 00 8b 81 fc 01 00 00 0f b7 91 06 02 00 00 0f b7
[ 297.418161] EIP: [<c01addd2>] bio_get_nr_vecs+0xf/0x3f SS:ESP
0068:cb38bc44
[ 297.432666] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da25 ]---
The BUG occurs here:
(gdb) l *(bio_get_nr_vecs+0xf)
0xc01addd2 is in bio_get_nr_vecs (include/linux/blkdev.h:785).
780 struct request *, int,
rq_end_io_fn *);
781 extern void blk_unplug(struct request_queue *q);
782
783 static inline struct request_queue *bdev_get_queue(struct
block_device *bdev)
784 {
785 return bdev->bd_disk->queue;
786 }
787
788 static inline void blk_run_backing_dev(struct backing_dev_info
*bdi,
789 struct page *page)
Greetings, Eric
ps: seems the btrfs entry in MAINTAINERS is missing
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:> Hi, > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the > following warning and bug message. The image can be found here > www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/btrfs.2.img.bck.bz2Thanks for looking at things Aside from catching checksumming errors, we''re not quite ready for fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn''t yet. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Chris Mason (chris.mason@oracle.com) wrote:> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > Hi, > > > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the > > following warning and bug message. The image can be found here > > www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/btrfs.2.img.bck.bz2 > > Thanks for looking at things > > Aside from catching checksumming errors, we''re not quite ready for > fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn''t > yet.Does this mean i should stop trying to break it for now or are you interested in further reports? Greetings, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:43 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:> * Chris Mason (chris.mason@oracle.com) wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the > > > following warning and bug message. The image can be found here > > > www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/btrfs.2.img.bck.bz2 > > > > Thanks for looking at things > > > > Aside from catching checksumming errors, we''re not quite ready for > > fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn''t > > yet. > > Does this mean i should stop trying to break it for now or are you interested > in further reports?For now, you''ll be able to break it at will ;) We''ll send out a please send us corrupt notice release announcement when we''ve hardened things. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue 2009-01-13 15:43:07, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:> * Chris Mason (chris.mason@oracle.com) wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the > > > following warning and bug message. The image can be found here > > > www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/btrfs.2.img.bck.bz2 > > > > Thanks for looking at things > > > > Aside from catching checksumming errors, we''re not quite ready for > > fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn''t > > yet. > > Does this mean i should stop trying to break it for now or are you interested > in further reports?Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in production'' and should survive it... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Hi, * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote:> On Tue 2009-01-13 15:43:07, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > * Chris Mason (chris.mason@oracle.com) wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the > > > > following warning and bug message. The image can be found here > > > > www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/btrfs.2.img.bck.bz2 > > > > > > Thanks for looking at things > > > > > > Aside from catching checksumming errors, we''re not quite ready for > > > fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn''t > > > yet. > > > > Does this mean i should stop trying to break it for now or are you interested > > in further reports? > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > production'' and should survive it...I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. They are all pretty stable, one remaining thing on my list i didnt have time to look into was an issue with fat (msdos) triggering a bug in buffer.c the other is a warning with ext4 in jbd2/checkpoint.c:166 If there is a filesystem you are interested in thats not on the list or that you want me to test a bit more, just let me know Greetings, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi!> > > > Thanks for looking at things > > > > > > > > Aside from catching checksumming errors, we''re not quite ready for > > > > fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn''t > > > > yet. > > > > > > Does this mean i should stop trying to break it for now or are you interested > > > in further reports? > > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > production'' and should survive it... > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > They are all pretty stable, one remaining thing on my list i didnt have > time to look into was an issue with fat (msdos) triggering a bug in > buffer.c the other is a warning with ext4 in jbd2/checkpoint.c:166Good, I did not expect filesystems to be in so good state. Thanks! Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:> * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > production'' and should survive it... > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines.Any reason you are not testing XFS in that set? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
* Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote:> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > > production'' and should survive it... > > > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > Any reason you are not testing XFS in that set?So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are interested in bugreports i can send you some. Greetings, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:15:03AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:> * Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > > > production'' and should survive it... > > > > > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > > > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > > > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > > > Any reason you are not testing XFS in that set? > > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > interested in bugreports i can send you some.Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along with all the other filesystems and report anything you find. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 07:31 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:> Hi, > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > production'' and should survive it... > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > They are all pretty stable, one remaining thing on my list i didnt have > time to look into was an issue with fat (msdos) triggering a bug in > buffer.c the other is a warning with ext4 in jbd2/checkpoint.c:166 > > If there is a filesystem you are interested in thats not on the list > or that you want me to test a bit more, just let me know >squashfs is in the kernel now, that would be good to see as well. I didn''t realize you were doing such extensive tests, thanks for doing them. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Christoph Hellwig
2009-Jan-20 13:28 UTC
Re: Warning and BUG with btrfs and corrupted image
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:59:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:> > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > > interested in bugreports i can send you some. > > Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along > with all the other filesystems and report anything you find.I think that was the issue with the debug builds. If you do this testing always do it without CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG set as with that option we intentionally panic on detected disk corruptions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Chris Mason (chris.mason@oracle.com) wrote:> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 07:31 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > Hi, > > > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > > production'' and should survive it... > > > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > > > They are all pretty stable, one remaining thing on my list i didnt have > > time to look into was an issue with fat (msdos) triggering a bug in > > buffer.c the other is a warning with ext4 in jbd2/checkpoint.c:166 > > > > If there is a filesystem you are interested in thats not on the list > > or that you want me to test a bit more, just let me know > > > > squashfs is in the kernel now, that would be good to see as well. I > didn''t realize you were doing such extensive tests, thanks for doing > them.I already tested squashfs. One issue is basically a problem with the zlib-api for which i just posted a patch here http://marc.info/?t=123212807300003&r=1&w=2 The other is an overwritten redzone (also reported in this thread http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=123212794425497&w=2) Looks like a length parameter is passed to squashfs_read_data which is bigger than ((msblk->block_size >> msblk->devblksize_log2) + 1), so the kcalloced buffer gets overwritten later. Maybe you want to take a look at this issue. Those are the only two problems i have seen so far with ~8000 tested squashfs images. Greetings, Eric
* Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote:> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:15:03AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > * Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > > > > production'' and should survive it... > > > > > > > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > > > > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > > > > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > > > > > Any reason you are not testing XFS in that set? > > > > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > > interested in bugreports i can send you some. > > Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along > with all the other filesystems and report anything you find.Ok, i wont report stuff with only xfs-internal backtraces from xfs_error_report() or are they interesting to you? This occurs during mount, box is dead afterwards Image can be found here : http://www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/xfs.11.img.bz2 I see this every ~10 images, which makes further testing hard :) [ 235.250167] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 235.250354] kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c:164! [ 235.250478] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT DEBUG_PAGEALLOC [ 235.250869] last sysfs file: /sys/block/ram9/range [ 235.250998] Modules linked in: [ 235.251037] [ 235.251037] Pid: 5352, comm: mount Not tainted (2.6.29-rc2-00021-gd84d31c #216) System Name [ 235.251037] EIP: 0060:[<c0182af1>] EFLAGS: 00010246 CPU: 0 [ 235.251037] EIP is at vmap_page_range+0x19/0x112 [ 235.251037] EAX: d1000000 EBX: d1000000 ECX: 00000163 EDX: d1000000 [ 235.251037] ESI: 00000003 EDI: d1000000 EBP: cbbd2c08 ESP: cbbd2be8 [ 235.251037] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0033 SS: 0068 [ 235.251037] Process mount (pid: 5352, ti=cbbd2000 task=cbb85b00 task.ti=cbbd2000) [ 235.251037] Stack: [ 235.251037] 00000246 cbb85b00 00000163 c01414cf cbbd2c0c d1000000 00000003 cba0f810 [ 235.251037] cbbd2c40 c018367c c848e280 00100000 00000000 c848e280 00000000 00000014 [ 235.251037] d1000000 cba0f944 00000000 c848e160 00000000 c848e160 cbbd2c54 c03b2e1e [ 235.251037] Call Trace: [ 235.251037] [<c01414cf>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd [ 235.251037] [<c018367c>] ? vm_map_ram+0x36e/0x38a [ 235.251037] [<c03b2e1e>] ? _xfs_buf_map_pages+0x42/0x6d [ 235.251037] [<c03b3773>] ? xfs_buf_get_noaddr+0xbc/0x11f [ 235.251037] [<c03a2406>] ? xlog_get_bp+0x5a/0x5d [ 235.251037] [<c03a28fa>] ? xlog_find_verify_log_record+0x26/0x208 [ 235.251037] [<c03a3521>] ? xlog_find_zeroed+0x1d6/0x214 [ 235.251037] [<c03a3584>] ? xlog_find_head+0x25/0x358 [ 235.251037] [<c011ca1f>] ? __enqueue_entity+0xa1/0xa9 [ 235.251037] [<c0107084>] ? native_sched_clock+0x41/0x68 [ 235.251037] [<c03a38d2>] ? xlog_find_tail+0x1b/0x3fa [ 235.251037] [<c01412b5>] ? mark_held_locks+0x43/0x5a [ 235.251037] [<c07b06a8>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3b/0x5d [ 235.251037] [<c07b06b4>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x47/0x5d [ 235.251037] [<c01209c6>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x12f/0x13a [ 235.251037] [<c03a5654>] ? xlog_recover+0x19/0x81 [ 235.251037] [<c03aaac3>] ? xfs_trans_ail_init+0x4b/0x64 [ 235.251037] [<c039f97d>] ? xfs_log_mount+0xef/0x13d [ 235.251037] [<c03a7152>] ? xfs_mountfs+0x30d/0x5b8 [ 235.251037] [<c0506101>] ? __debug_object_init+0x28b/0x293 [ 235.251037] [<c012b3b5>] ? init_timer+0x1c/0x1f [ 235.251037] [<c03a7aa1>] ? xfs_mru_cache_create+0x114/0x14e [ 235.251037] [<c03ba205>] ? xfs_fs_fill_super+0x196/0x2e5 [ 235.251037] [<c01919c5>] ? get_sb_bdev+0xf1/0x13f [ 235.251037] [<c0178896>] ? kstrdup+0x2f/0x51 [ 235.251037] [<c03b881b>] ? xfs_fs_get_sb+0x18/0x1a [ 235.251037] [<c03ba06f>] ? xfs_fs_fill_super+0x0/0x2e5 [ 235.251037] [<c019159c>] ? vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b [ 235.251037] [<c0191625>] ? do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf [ 235.251037] [<c01a2cb0>] ? do_mount+0x5cc/0x609 [ 235.251037] [<c07b087b>] ? lock_kernel+0x19/0x8c [ 235.251037] [<c01a2d43>] ? sys_mount+0x56/0xa0 [ 235.251037] [<c01a2d56>] ? sys_mount+0x69/0xa0 [ 235.251037] [<c0102ea1>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31 [ 235.251037] Code: 0f 0b eb fe ba 01 00 00 00 89 c8 e8 02 ff ff ff 5d c3 55 89 e5 57 56 53 83 ec 14 0f 1f 44 00 00 39 d0 89 c3 89 d7 89 4d e8 72 04 <0f> 0b eb fe c1 e8 16 8d 34 85 00 00 00 00 03 35 84 91 a3 c0 8d [ 235.251037] EIP: [<c0182af1>] vmap_page_range+0x19/0x112 SS:ESP 0068:cbbd2be8 [ 235.269534] ---[ end trace 2d923bf9b290e3d9 ]--- [ 235.274695] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000f [ 235.275005] IP: [<c0136592>] enqueue_hrtimer+0x2d/0x85 [ 235.275041] *pde = 00000000 [ 235.275041] Oops: 0000 [#2] PREEMPT DEBUG_PAGEALLOC [ 235.275041] last sysfs file: /sys/block/ram9/range [ 235.275041] Modules linked in: [ 235.275041] [ 235.275041] Pid: 5356, comm: syslogd Tainted: G D (2.6.29-rc2-00021-gd84d31c #216) System Name [ 235.275041] EIP: 0060:[<c0136592>] EFLAGS: 00010086 CPU: 0 [ 235.275041] EIP is at enqueue_hrtimer+0x2d/0x85 [ 235.275041] EAX: cba3cb00 EBX: cbbbad24 ECX: ffffffff EDX: 0000003a [ 235.275041] ESI: cba3cb04 EDI: c0a42d84 EBP: c8429f0c ESP: c8429efc [ 235.275041] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0033 SS: 0068 [ 235.275041] Process syslogd (pid: 5356, ti=c8429000 task=cbb14e00 task.ti=c8429000) [ 235.275041] Stack: [ 235.275041] 00000000 00000000 00000000 cbbbad24 c8429f2c c0136a47 c0a42d84 00000096 [ 235.275041] 00000000 cbb14e00 7e11d600 00000003 c8429f3c c0136b2a 00000000 00000001 [ 235.275041] c8429f80 c0126d3e 00000001 00000000 00000000 cbbbacc0 bfbc59dc c8429f7c [ 235.275041] Call Trace: [ 235.275041] [<c0136a47>] ? hrtimer_start_range_ns+0xc2/0x193 [ 235.275041] [<c0136b2a>] ? hrtimer_start+0x12/0x14 [ 235.275041] [<c0126d3e>] ? do_setitimer+0x131/0x2d4 [ 235.275041] [<c0126f93>] ? alarm_setitimer+0x3a/0x59 [ 235.275041] [<c012b5b1>] ? sys_alarm+0x10/0x12 [ 235.275041] [<c0102ea1>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31 [ 235.275041] Code: e5 57 56 53 83 ec 04 0f 1f 44 00 00 89 d7 89 c3 8d 72 08 ba c0 2d a4 c0 e8 a1 f5 3c 00 31 c0 c7 45 f0 01 00 00 00 eb 23 8b 53 10 <3b> 51 10 8b 43 0c 7f 0c 7c 05 3b 41 0c 73 05 8d 71 08 eb 0a 8d [ 235.275041] EIP: [<c0136592>] enqueue_hrtimer+0x2d/0x85 SS:ESP 0068:c8429efc [ 235.275041] ---[ end trace 2d923bf9b290e3da ]--- [ 235.275041] note: syslogd[5356] exited with preempt_count 2 Different trace from the same issue: [ 329.292534] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 329.292721] kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c:164! [ 329.292849] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT DEBUG_PAGEALLOC [ 329.293037] last sysfs file: /sys/block/ram9/range [ 329.293037] Modules linked in: [ 329.293037] [ 329.293037] Pid: 5860, comm: mount Tainted: G W (2.6.29-rc2-00021-gd84d31c #216) System Name [ 329.293037] EIP: 0060:[<c0182af1>] EFLAGS: 00010246 CPU: 0 [ 329.293037] EIP is at vmap_page_range+0x19/0x112 [ 329.293037] EAX: d1800000 EBX: d1800000 ECX: 00000163 EDX: d1800000 [ 329.293037] ESI: 00000005 EDI: d1800000 EBP: cacacc08 ESP: cacacbe8 [ 329.293037] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0033 SS: 0068 [ 329.293037] Process mount (pid: 5860, ti=cacac000 task=caf71a00 task.ti=cacac000) [ 329.293037] Stack: [ 329.293037] 00000246 caf71a00 00000163 c01414cf cacacc0c d1800000 00000005 cae795e0 [ 329.293037] cacacc40 c018367c c280e120 00100000 00000000 c280e120 00000000 00000014 [ 329.293037] d1800000 cae79714 00000000 c280e000 00000000 c280e000 cacacc54 c03b2e1e [ 329.293037] Call Trace: [ 329.293037] [<c01414cf>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd [ 329.293037] [<c018367c>] ? vm_map_ram+0x36e/0x38a [ 329.293037] [<c03b2e1e>] ? _xfs_buf_map_pages+0x42/0x6d [ 329.293037] [<c03b3773>] ? xfs_buf_get_noaddr+0xbc/0x11f [ 329.293037] [<c03a2406>] ? xlog_get_bp+0x5a/0x5d [ 329.293037] [<c03a28fa>] ? xlog_find_verify_log_record+0x26/0x208 [ 329.293037] [<c03a3521>] ? xlog_find_zeroed+0x1d6/0x214 [ 329.293037] [<c03a3584>] ? xlog_find_head+0x25/0x358 [ 329.293037] [<c011ca1f>] ? __enqueue_entity+0xa1/0xa9 [ 329.293037] [<c03a38d2>] ? xlog_find_tail+0x1b/0x3fa [ 329.293037] [<c01414cf>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd [ 329.293037] [<c07b06a8>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3b/0x5d [ 329.293037] [<c07b06b4>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x47/0x5d [ 329.293037] [<c01209c6>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x12f/0x13a [ 329.293037] [<c03a5654>] ? xlog_recover+0x19/0x81 [ 329.293037] [<c03aaac3>] ? xfs_trans_ail_init+0x4b/0x64 [ 329.293037] [<c039f97d>] ? xfs_log_mount+0xef/0x13d [ 329.293037] [<c03a7152>] ? xfs_mountfs+0x30d/0x5b8 [ 329.293037] [<c0506101>] ? __debug_object_init+0x28b/0x293 [ 329.293037] [<c012b3b5>] ? init_timer+0x1c/0x1f [ 329.293037] [<c03a7aa1>] ? xfs_mru_cache_create+0x114/0x14e [ 329.293037] [<c03ba205>] ? xfs_fs_fill_super+0x196/0x2e5 [ 329.293037] [<c01919c5>] ? get_sb_bdev+0xf1/0x13f [ 329.293037] [<c0178896>] ? kstrdup+0x2f/0x51 [ 329.293037] [<c03b881b>] ? xfs_fs_get_sb+0x18/0x1a [ 329.293037] [<c03ba06f>] ? xfs_fs_fill_super+0x0/0x2e5 [ 329.293037] [<c019159c>] ? vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b [ 329.293037] [<c0191625>] ? do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf [ 329.293037] [<c01a2cb0>] ? do_mount+0x5cc/0x609 [ 329.293037] [<c07b087b>] ? lock_kernel+0x19/0x8c [ 329.293037] [<c01a2d43>] ? sys_mount+0x56/0xa0 [ 329.293037] [<c01a2d56>] ? sys_mount+0x69/0xa0 [ 329.293037] [<c0102ea1>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31 [ 329.293037] Code: 0f 0b eb fe ba 01 00 00 00 89 c8 e8 02 ff ff ff 5d c3 55 89 e5 57 56 53 83 ec 14 0f 1f 44 00 00 39 d0 89 c3 89 d7 89 4d e8 72 04 <0f> 0b eb fe c1 e8 16 8d 34 85 00 00 00 00 03 35 84 91 a3 c0 8d [ 329.293037] EIP: [<c0182af1>] vmap_page_range+0x19/0x112 SS:ESP 0068:cacacbe8 [ 329.310688] ---[ end trace a7919e7f17c0a727 ]--- Greetings, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue 2009-01-20 18:34:55, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:> * Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:15:03AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > * Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > > > > > production'' and should survive it... > > > > > > > > > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > > > > > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > > > > > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > > > > > > > Any reason you are not testing XFS in that set? > > > > > > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > > > interested in bugreports i can send you some. > > > > Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along > > with all the other filesystems and report anything you find. > > Ok, i wont report stuff with only xfs-internal backtraces from > xfs_error_report() or are they interesting to you? > > This occurs during mount, box is dead afterwards > Image can be found here : > http://www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/xfs.11.img.bz2 > I see this every ~10 images, which makes further testing hard :)BTW have you considered trying to run fsck.* on such images? I had lot of fun with e2fsck/e3fsck/fsck.vfat. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue 2009-01-20 08:28:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:59:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > > > interested in bugreports i can send you some. > > > > Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along > > with all the other filesystems and report anything you find. > > I think that was the issue with the debug builds. If you do this > testing always do it without CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG set as with that option > we intentionally panic on detected disk corruptions.Uhuh, *_DEBUG options are not supposed to make kernel less stable/robust. Should that crashing functionality be guarded with command line option or something? ext2 has errors=panic mount option... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:> On Tue 2009-01-20 08:28:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:59:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > > > > interested in bugreports i can send you some. > > > > > > Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along > > > with all the other filesystems and report anything you find. > > > > I think that was the issue with the debug builds. If you do this > > testing always do it without CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG set as with that option > > we intentionally panic on detected disk corruptions. > > Uhuh, *_DEBUG options are not supposed to make kernel less > stable/robust. Should that crashing functionality be guarded with > command line option or something? ext2 has errors=panic mount > option...No, it''s a debugging option that is described as: "Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV." Seriously, if you aren''t trying to develop XFS stuff then *don''t turn it on*. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote:> On Tue 2009-01-20 18:34:55, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > * Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:15:03AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > > * Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com) wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:31:50AM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > > > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > > > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are ''in > > > > > > > production'' and should survive it... > > > > > > > > > > > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > > > > > > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > > > > > > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > > > > > > > > > Any reason you are not testing XFS in that set? > > > > > > > > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > > > > interested in bugreports i can send you some. > > > > > > Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along > > > with all the other filesystems and report anything you find. > > > > Ok, i wont report stuff with only xfs-internal backtraces from > > xfs_error_report() or are they interesting to you? > > > > This occurs during mount, box is dead afterwards > > Image can be found here : > > http://www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/xfs.11.img.bz2 > > I see this every ~10 images, which makes further testing hard :) > > BTW have you considered trying to run fsck.* on such images? I had lot > of fun with e2fsck/e3fsck/fsck.vfat.Not yet, but if one assumes the people writing the userspace code are the same writing the kernel code, and probably make the same errors in both versions this might be interesting. For userspace a more advanced approach than random bit flipping is possible with tools like bunny (http://code.google.com/p/bunny-the-fuzzer/) Bunny instrumentates the code, and then tries to change the input file based on the feedback it gets from the instrumentation. I fired up an instance testing ext2, lets see if it finishes until evening :-) Maybe someone is brave enough to test this approach with user mode linux... :) Greetings, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@gmx.de> wrote:> I already tested squashfs. One issue is basically a problem with > the zlib-api for which i just posted a patch here > http://marc.info/?t=123212807300003&r=1&w=2 >Thanks for testing Squashfs. I''ve not ignored your emails, but I''ve been busy job hunting, and so have not had time to look into this until now. I hardened Squashfs against fsfuzzer back in November 2006 (remember the month of kernel bugs, or MOKB, which highlighted a number of issues with Squashfs). Your testing has thrown up a regression that I inadvertently put in last month!> The other is an overwritten redzone (also reported in this thread > http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=123212794425497&w=2) > Looks like a length parameter is passed to squashfs_read_data > which is bigger than ((msblk->block_size >> msblk->devblksize_log2) + > 1), so the kcalloced buffer gets overwritten later.As part of the mainlining effort I changed Squashfs to allocate buffers in 4K page sizes rather than use vmalloced large buffers. As far as zlib goes, it means zlib_inflate now decompresses into a sequence of 4K buffers rather than one large buffer. What this means is zlib_inflate is called repeatedly moving to the next 4K page whenever zlib_inflate asks for another buffer (stream.avail_out == 0). Your testing have thrown up the case where zlib_inflate is asking for too many output buffers, i.e. it has returned with Z_OK, stream.avail_in !=0 (more input data to be processed), and stream.avail_out == 0 (I''d like another output buffer). but it has consumed all the output buffers. This isn''t checked (the code assumes zlib will do the right thing on corrupt data and bomb out). My guess is either zlib_inflate is getting confused with corrupt data, or fsfuzzer gets lucky sometimes and corrupts the filesystem to point to another valid but larger compressed block (i.e. in your test filesystems the 4K datablock is being corrupted to point to an 8K metadata block). This ultimately leads to an oops in zlib_inflate where it has been passed a bogus or NULL steam.next_out pointer. I''ll create a patch and send it to you if you''re happy to test it. Phillip -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed 2009-01-21 15:00:42, Dave Chinner wrote:> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Tue 2009-01-20 08:28:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:59:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > So far the responses from xfs folks have been disappointing, if you are > > > > > interested in bugreports i can send you some. > > > > > > > > Sure I am. It would be good if you could start testing XFS along > > > > with all the other filesystems and report anything you find. > > > > > > I think that was the issue with the debug builds. If you do this > > > testing always do it without CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG set as with that option > > > we intentionally panic on detected disk corruptions. > > > > Uhuh, *_DEBUG options are not supposed to make kernel less > > stable/robust. Should that crashing functionality be guarded with > > command line option or something? ext2 has errors=panic mount > > option... > > No, it''s a debugging option that is described as: > > "Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV." > > Seriously, if you aren''t trying to develop XFS stuff then *don''t turn it > on*.What about this, then? Pavel --- Warn in documentation that XFS_DEBUG panics machines. Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> diff --git a/fs/xfs/Kconfig b/fs/xfs/Kconfig index 3f53dd1..55c98eb 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/Kconfig +++ b/fs/xfs/Kconfig @@ -76,4 +76,7 @@ config XFS_DEBUG Note that the resulting code will be HUGE and SLOW, and probably not useful unless you are debugging a particular problem. + Turning this option on will result in kernel panicking any time + it detects on-disk corruption. + Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
ashford@whisperpc.com
2009-Jan-26 20:06 UTC
[Discussion] Apparent inconsistancies in use of io_align, io_width & sector_size
While digging through btrfs-progs, I noticed that there were several apparent
discrepancies in the use of io_align, io_width & sector_size (in structure
btrfs_dev_item). I believe we need the core developers to define the contents
of these values, so that the various programs and kernel modules can be
checked to be sure that the correct values are being used.
I have made some guesses as to the definitions of these values, and the kernel
code appears to support these guesses at first glance (not too sure about
io_align). My guesses are:
sector_size - This is the size, in bytes, of the atomic unit of allocation and
I/O within the file-system. It must be a power of two, must be at least as
large as a disk sector, and must be no larger than a kernel page.
io_width - This value is only meaningful in a RAID-0 or RAID-10 (also RAID-5
and RAID-6 in the future) volume, or when the underlying device is a RAID
array (other than RAID-1). This is the maximum number of bytes that can be
written to a device without switching to another device, and is equivalent
to "chunk size" in the MD driver. This must be a power of two,
and an
integer multiple of sector_size.
io_align - This value is the offset, in bytes, of the start of the partition to
the start of the file-system. As an example, a value of 1536 would
indicate that the file-system starts 1536 bytes (3 disk blocks) into the
file-system. This must be an integer multiple of the disk sector size.
For optimum RAID performance, it should also be the offset of first RAID
segment from the beginning of the partition. I believe that the intended
usage of this value is to allow file-system allocations to align with RAID
segments provided by lower levels (Linux MD, HW RAID controllers or SAN
controllers).
Thank you.
Peter Ashford
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:> On Wed 2009-01-21 15:00:42, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Tue 2009-01-20 08:28:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > I think that was the issue with the debug builds. If you do this > > > > testing always do it without CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG set as with that option > > > > we intentionally panic on detected disk corruptions. > > > > > > Uhuh, *_DEBUG options are not supposed to make kernel less > > > stable/robust. Should that crashing functionality be guarded with > > > command line option or something? ext2 has errors=panic mount > > > option... > > > > No, it''s a debugging option that is described as: > > > > "Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV." > > > > Seriously, if you aren''t trying to develop XFS stuff then *don''t turn it > > on*. > > What about this, then?....> + Turning this option on will result in kernel panicking any time > + it detects on-disk corruption.Thin end of a wedge. There''s a couple of thousand conditions that CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG introduces kernel panics on: $ grep -r ASSERT fs/xfs |wc -l 2095 CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers, including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides, which bit of "don''t turn it on unless you are an XFS developer" don''t you understand? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun 2009-02-01 12:40:50, Dave Chinner wrote:> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Wed 2009-01-21 15:00:42, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > On Tue 2009-01-20 08:28:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > I think that was the issue with the debug builds. If you do this > > > > > testing always do it without CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG set as with that option > > > > > we intentionally panic on detected disk corruptions. > > > > > > > > Uhuh, *_DEBUG options are not supposed to make kernel less > > > > stable/robust. Should that crashing functionality be guarded with > > > > command line option or something? ext2 has errors=panic mount > > > > option... > > > > > > No, it''s a debugging option that is described as: > > > > > > "Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV." > > > > > > Seriously, if you aren''t trying to develop XFS stuff then *don''t turn it > > > on*. > > > > What about this, then? > > .... > > > + Turning this option on will result in kernel panicking any time > > + it detects on-disk corruption. > > Thin end of a wedge. There''s a couple of thousand conditions that > CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG introduces kernel panics on: > > $ grep -r ASSERT fs/xfs |wc -l > 2095 > > > CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers, > including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides, > which bit of "don''t turn it on unless you are an XFS developer" > don''t you understand?Yes, but DEBUG code is normally to help debugging, not to crash kernels. IMO xfs should use errors=panic mount option as ext3 does, but... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 07:29:51PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:> On Sun 2009-02-01 12:40:50, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Wed 2009-01-21 15:00:42, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > + Turning this option on will result in kernel panicking any time > > > + it detects on-disk corruption. > > > > Thin end of a wedge. There''s a couple of thousand conditions that > > CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG introduces kernel panics on: > > > > $ grep -r ASSERT fs/xfs |wc -l > > 2095 > > > > > > CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers, > > including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides, > > which bit of "don''t turn it on unless you are an XFS developer" > > don''t you understand? > > Yes, but DEBUG code is normally to help debugging, not to crash > kernels.Crashing the kernel at exactly the point a problem is detected is often the simplest way of debugging the problem. e.g. CONFIG_VM_DEBUG=y turns on VM_BUG_ON() which crashes the kernel whenever it detects something wrong. Do I turn it on? Yes. Do i complain about it when I hit a VM_BUG_ON()? No, I report the bug and move on. If you turn on a DEBUG option, then you are asking the system to behave in a way useful to a developer, not an end user. That includes panicing when something wrong is detected.> IMO xfs should use errors=panic mount option as ext3 does, > but...We already have an equivalent: /proc/sys/fs/xfs/panic_mask The mask is empty on production kernels and can be selectively turned on (depending on what error type you want to panic on). CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG turns them all on by default so we can, weļl, panic the system and debug any problem that occurs.... Cheers, Dave, -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers, > > > including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides, > > > which bit of "don''t turn it on unless you are an XFS developer" > > > don''t you understand? > > > > Yes, but DEBUG code is normally to help debugging, not to crash > > kernels. > > Crashing the kernel at exactly the point a problem is detected > is often the simplest way of debugging the problem. > > e.g. CONFIG_VM_DEBUG=y turns on VM_BUG_ON() which crashes the kernel > whenever it detects something wrong. Do I turn it on? Yes. Do iThat''s different. User is not supposed to be able to trigger VM_BUG_ON().> complain about it when I hit a VM_BUG_ON()? No, I report the > bug and move on. If you turn on a DEBUG option, then you are > asking the system to behave in a way useful to a developer, > not an end user. That includes panicing when something wrong > is detected.Imagine vm going panic() on mkdir("/lost+found")... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 10:02 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:> > > > CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers, > > > > including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides, > > > > which bit of "don''t turn it on unless you are an XFS developer" > > > > don''t you understand? > > > > > > Yes, but DEBUG code is normally to help debugging, not to crash > > > kernels. > > > > Crashing the kernel at exactly the point a problem is detected > > is often the simplest way of debugging the problem. > > > > e.g. CONFIG_VM_DEBUG=y turns on VM_BUG_ON() which crashes the kernel > > whenever it detects something wrong. Do I turn it on? Yes. Do i > > That''s different. User is not supposed to be able to trigger > VM_BUG_ON(). > > > complain about it when I hit a VM_BUG_ON()? No, I report the > > bug and move on. If you turn on a DEBUG option, then you are > > asking the system to behave in a way useful to a developer, > > not an end user. That includes panicing when something wrong > > is detected. > > Imagine vm going panic() on mkdir("/lost+found")...It is up to the XFS developers to decide what their debugging options do. The whole point of panicing is so that you can collect important information about the system at the time of the error condition. When this option is compiled on, panic on mkdir is exactly what they are asking for. If you don''t want it, don''t compile it in. The Kconfig text is very clear. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu 2009-02-05 08:02:39, Chris Mason wrote:> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 10:02 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > CONFIG_*_DEBUG means include *debug* code there to help developers, > > > > > including adding additional failure tests into the kernel. Besides, > > > > > which bit of "don''t turn it on unless you are an XFS developer" > > > > > don''t you understand? > > > > > > > > Yes, but DEBUG code is normally to help debugging, not to crash > > > > kernels. > > > > > > Crashing the kernel at exactly the point a problem is detected > > > is often the simplest way of debugging the problem. > > > > > > e.g. CONFIG_VM_DEBUG=y turns on VM_BUG_ON() which crashes the kernel > > > whenever it detects something wrong. Do I turn it on? Yes. Do i > > > > That''s different. User is not supposed to be able to trigger > > VM_BUG_ON(). > > > > > complain about it when I hit a VM_BUG_ON()? No, I report the > > > bug and move on. If you turn on a DEBUG option, then you are > > > asking the system to behave in a way useful to a developer, > > > not an end user. That includes panicing when something wrong > > > is detected. > > > > Imagine vm going panic() on mkdir("/lost+found")... > > It is up to the XFS developers to decide what their debugging options > do.Eh?> The whole point of panicing is so that you can collect important > information about the system at the time of the error condition. When > this option is compiled on, panic on mkdir is exactly what they are > asking for. > > If you don''t want it, don''t compile it in. The Kconfig text is very > clear.No, I''d not expect that option to panic systems. That''s why I suggested: diff --git a/fs/xfs/Kconfig b/fs/xfs/Kconfig index 29228f5..b7ac847 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/Kconfig +++ b/fs/xfs/Kconfig @@ -77,4 +77,7 @@ config XFS_DEBUG Note that the resulting code will be HUGE and SLOW, and probably not useful unless you are debugging a particular problem. + Turning this option on will result in kernel panicking any time + it detects on-disk corruption. + Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Pavel Machek wrote:>> If you don''t want it, don''t compile it in. The Kconfig text is very >> clear. > > No, I''d not expect that option to panic systems. That''s why I > suggested: > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/Kconfig b/fs/xfs/Kconfig > index 29228f5..b7ac847 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/Kconfig > +++ b/fs/xfs/Kconfig > @@ -77,4 +77,7 @@ config XFS_DEBUG > Note that the resulting code will be HUGE and SLOW, and probably > not useful unless you are debugging a particular problem. > > + Turning this option on will result in kernel panicking any time > + it detects on-disk corruption. > + > Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV.If you really want a better warning it should simply be: Choosing Y will make XFS panic on survivable events. I understand you may have a concern that "normal users" will select the debug option by mistake, but I don''t think that is realistic. My experience is they will not build custom debug kernels even if you beg them to. They will only use the distro build and a distro should never turn this option on outside their own labs. Any non-xfs kernel developer who turns this on and gets snake bit will only do it once. jim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu 2009-02-05 09:19:28, jim owens wrote:> Pavel Machek wrote: >>> If you don''t want it, don''t compile it in. The Kconfig text is very >>> clear. >> >> No, I''d not expect that option to panic systems. That''s why I >> suggested: >> >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/Kconfig b/fs/xfs/Kconfig >> index 29228f5..b7ac847 100644 >> --- a/fs/xfs/Kconfig >> +++ b/fs/xfs/Kconfig >> @@ -77,4 +77,7 @@ config XFS_DEBUG >> Note that the resulting code will be HUGE and SLOW, and probably >> not useful unless you are debugging a particular problem. >> + Turning this option on will result in kernel panicking any time >> + it detects on-disk corruption. >> + >> Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV. > > If you really want a better warning it should simply be: > > Choosing Y will make XFS panic on survivable events.Can we get that line there?> I understand you may have a concern that "normal users" will select > the debug option by mistake, but I don''t think that is realistic. > My experience is they will not build custom debug kernels even if > you beg them to. They will only use the distro build and a > distro should never turn this option on outside their own labs. > > Any non-xfs kernel developer who turns this on and gets > snake bit will only do it once.One bite per developer is one bite too many.. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [PATCH v3 09/27] x86/acpi: Adapt assembly for PIE support
- [PATCH v3 09/27] x86/acpi: Adapt assembly for PIE support
- [PATCH v3 09/27] x86/acpi: Adapt assembly for PIE support
- [PATCH v3 11/27] x86/power/64: Adapt assembly for PIE support
- [PATCH v3 11/27] x86/power/64: Adapt assembly for PIE support