xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 3.9.3: Oops running xfstests

To: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 3.9.3: Oops running xfstests
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:51:15 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1985929268.4997720.1369279277543.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <510292845.4997401.1369279175460.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <1985929268.4997720.1369279277543.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:21:17PM -0400, CAI Qian wrote:
> Fedora-19 based distro and LVM partitions.

Cai: As I've asked previously please include all the relevant
information about your test system and the workload it is running
when the problem occurs.  Stack traces aren't any good to us in
isolation, and just dumping them on us causes unnecessary round
trips.

http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F


> [  304.898489] 
> ============================================================================= 
> [  304.898489] BUG kmalloc-4096 (Tainted: G      D     ): Padding 
> overwritten. 0xffff8801fbeb7c28-0xffff8801fbeb7fff 
> [  304.898490] 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> [  304.898490]  
> [  304.898491] INFO: Slab 0xffffea0007efac00 objects=7 used=7 fp=0x          
> (null) flags=0x20000000004080 
> [  304.898492] Pid: 357, comm: systemd-udevd Tainted: G    B D      3.9.3 #1 
> [  304.898492] Call Trace: 
> [  304.898495]  [<ffffffff81181ed2>] slab_err+0xc2/0xf0 
> [  304.898497]  [<ffffffff8118176d>] ? init_object+0x3d/0x70 
> [  304.898498]  [<ffffffff81181ff5>] slab_pad_check.part.41+0xf5/0x170 
> [  304.898500]  [<ffffffff811bda63>] ? seq_read+0x2e3/0x3b0 
> [  304.898501]  [<ffffffff811820e3>] check_slab+0x73/0x100 
> [  304.898503]  [<ffffffff81606b50>] alloc_debug_processing+0x21/0x118 
> [  304.898504]  [<ffffffff8160772f>] __slab_alloc+0x3b8/0x4a2 
> [  304.898506]  [<ffffffff81161b57>] ? vma_link+0xb7/0xc0 
> [  304.898508]  [<ffffffff811bda63>] ? seq_read+0x2e3/0x3b0 
> [  304.898509]  [<ffffffff81184dd1>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1b1/0x200 
> [  304.898510]  [<ffffffff811bda63>] seq_read+0x2e3/0x3b0 
> [  304.898512]  [<ffffffff8119c56c>] vfs_read+0x9c/0x170 
> [  304.898513]  [<ffffffff8119c939>] sys_read+0x49/0xa0 
> [  304.898514]  [<ffffffff81619359>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b 

That's something different, and indicates memory corruption is being
seen as a result of something that is occuring through the /proc or
/sys filesystems. Unrelated to XFS, I think...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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