On 4/9/18 12:38 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09 2018 at 11:51am -0400,
> Mike Snitzer <snit...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Apr 08 2018 at 12:00am -0400,
>> Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The following kernel oops(divide error) is triggered when running
>>> xfstest(generic/347) on ext4.
>>>
>>> [  442.632954] run fstests generic/347 at 2018-04-07 18:06:44
>>> [  443.839480] divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
>>> [  443.840201] Dumping ftrace buffer:
>>> [  443.840692]    (ftrace buffer empty)
> ...
>>> [  443.845756] CPU: 1 PID: 29607 Comm: dmsetup Not tainted 
>>> 4.16.0_f605ba97fb80_master+ #1
>>> [  443.846968] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 
>>> 1.10.2-2.fc27 04/01/2014
>>> [  443.848147] RIP: 0010:pool_io_hints+0x77/0x153 [dm_thin_pool]
> 
> ...
> 
>> I was able to reproduce (in my case RIP was pool_io_hints+0x45)
>>
>> Which on my kernel, is:
>>
>> crash> dis -l pool_io_hints+0x45
>> /root/snitm/git/linux/drivers/md/dm-thin.c: 2748
>> 0xffffffffc0765165 <pool_io_hints+69>:  div    %rdi
>>
>> Which is drivers/md/dm-thin.c:is_factor()'s return
>> !sector_div(block_size, n);
>>
>> SO looking at pool_io_hints() it would seem limits->max_sectors is 0 for
>> this xfstests device... why would that be!?
>>
>> Clearly pool_io_hints() could stand to be more defensive with a
>> !limits->max_sectors negative check but is it ever really valid for
>> max_sectors to be 0?
>>
>> Pretty sure the ultimate bug is outside DM (but not seeing an obvious
>> place where block core would set max_sectors to 0, all blk-settings.c
>> uses min_not_zero(), etc).
> 
> I successfully ran this test against the linux-dm.git
> "for-4.17/dm-changes" tag that Linus merged after the block changes:
>  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git 
> tags/for-4.17/dm-changes
> 
> # ./check tests/generic/347
> FSTYP         -- ext4
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 thegoat 4.16.0-rc5.snitm
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- /dev/mapper/test-xfstests_scratch
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr /dev/mapper/test-xfstests_scratch /scratch
> 
> generic/347      65s
> Ran: generic/347
> Passed all 1 tests
> 
> SO this would seem to implicate some regression in the 4.17 block layer
> changes.

No immediate ideas come to mind, we didn't have a lot of changes and I
don't see anything that looks problematic. Maybe you can try and
bisect it and see what you come up with?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Reply via email to