xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_efi_item slab corruption. (v3.9-10936-g51a26ae)

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_efi_item slab corruption. (v3.9-10936-g51a26ae)
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 17:45:20 -0500
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130507222256.GD24635@dastard>
References: <20130507133707.GA18301@xxxxxxxxxx> <51895025.2010709@xxxxxxx> <20130507190731.GA15528@xxxxxxxxxx> <518954DE.4070803@xxxxxxx> <20130507193146.GA7539@xxxxxxxxxx> <51895CD7.7040806@xxxxxxx> <20130507195954.GA8384@xxxxxxxxxx> <51895E51.2050508@xxxxxxx> <20130507202217.GA9883@xxxxxxxxxx> <518962FC.2060509@xxxxxxx> <20130507222256.GD24635@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 05/07/13 17:22, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:24:28PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 05/07/13 15:22, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:04:33PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
  >   On 05/07/13 14:59, Dave Jones wrote:
  >   >   On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 02:58:15PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
  >   >
  >   >     >    >    I can hit this almost instantly with fsx. I'll do a 
bisect, though
  >   >     >    >    it sounds like you already have a suspect.
  >   >     >    >
  >   >     >
  >   >     >    If you want to try kmem debug of Linux 3.8 that would help.
  >   >
  >   >   I'm not sure what that is.
  >
  >   Sorry, if you would test Linux 3.8 with "CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB=y".

Ah, done that. (I pretty much always run with it).

This is something new. Even 3.9 was fine. It's only since
the recent xfs merge.

        Dave


git revert 666d644cd72a9ec58b353209ff191d7430f3b357

That won't prevent the use after free. That commit fixed a problem
that could lead to a use after free, but what we are seeing here is
that it has ultimately exposed a previously unknown issue that
causes the use after free.

Basically what is happening is that there are two commits for the
EFD being processed, when there should only be one. I'm not sure how
this is happening yet, but these three traces came out from my debug
sequentially when running generic/006:


Sorry for the misleading statement. Yes, I agree that patch is a good thing. I meant that Dave and only Dave revert it and only to test if that patch was the change that caused the new symptom - which we know now that it is.

I added some asserts and did not learn anything new except where the efi item was already freed.

--Mark.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>