| To: | Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2) |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 22 May 2013 09:34:29 +1000 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20130521225257.GA12713@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20130521225257.GA12713@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:52:57PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > [ 464.210598] XFS: Assertion failed: (mask & > (ATTR_MODE|ATTR_UID|ATTR_GID|ATTR_ATIME|ATTR_ATIME_SET| > ATTR_MTIME_SET|ATTR_KILL_SUID|ATTR_KILL_SGID| ATTR_KILL_PRIV|ATTR_TIMES_SET)) > == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c, line: 719 Never seen that fire before, but this is why we have ASSERT()s like this - we're being handed something by the VFS we don't expect... Can you give me some context of the file permissions before the syscall and what the syscall parameters are? i.e. is this likely to be trying to strip SUID/SGID during the truncate operation? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 04/11] xfs: remote attribute tail zeroing does too much, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [BUG] XFS: Assertion failed: atomic_read(&pag->pag_ref) == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c, line: 272, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2), Dave Jones |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2), Dave Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |