On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:10:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Chris Mason <c...@fb.com> wrote:

Seems to be the whole thing:

Ahh. On lkml, so I do have it in my mailbox, but Dave changed the
subject line when he tested on ext4 rather than btrfs..

Anyway, the corrupted address is somewhat interesting. As Dave Jones
said, he saw

 list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffff806648),
but was ffffc9000067fcd8. (prev=ffff880503878b80).
 list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffffc05648),
but was ffffc9000028bcd8. (prev=ffff880503a145c0).

and Dave Chinner reports

 list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffffc02808),
but was ffffc90005f6bda8. (prev=ffff88013363bb80).

and it's worth noting that the "but was" is a remarkably consistent
vmalloc address (the ffffc9000.. pattern gives it away). In fact, it's
identical across two boots for DaveJ in the low 14 bits, and fairly
high up in those low 14 bots (0x3cd8).

DaveC has a different address, but it's also in the vmalloc space, and
also looks like it is fairly high up in 14 bits (0x3da8). So in both
cases it's almost certainly a stack address with a fairly empty stack.
The differences are presumably due to different kernel configurations
and/or just different filesystems calling the same function that does
the same bad thing but now at different depths in the stack.

Adding Andy to the cc, because this *might* be triggered by the
vmalloc stack code itself. Maybe the re-use of stacks showing some
problem? Maybe Chris (who can't see the problem) doesn't have

CONFIG_VMAP_STACK=y, but maybe I just need to hammer on process creation more. I'm testing in a hugely stripped down VM, so Dave might have more background stuff going on.


Reply via email to