From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F9C817FE for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2024 00:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733531807; cv=none; b=qw5Q+9f7GUjyuZprCvT++E1quZhS5INW7ScupyyqOsnJFjLSLcFwLSMcP8pVp+Z6l3VR1R63DzwZQQ4E8mXRc11n1O/fgV67NRMN+VAOZKewPNIw+HVvBywJ4XFJRacET0T/yWTvFTPnmRXgcF+0GHUQqvs8/x7u7RQScggo+vI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733531807; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mDJ4u2sWNM4Wc2C4iu8wZDrRG+u3RVs9876gX556cMw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Xx8XzJsBHf0DNHzVt3TDXT7PZfLhMpi15FYslXK6qi97meAf6ogGgYz0ih7YqwcNBI9G6lEHf7h4QmM7dz/xZHdepHCdVhauo/dhoLHdi2FBGSEnk5PdaVLajZXWo1gtg4uTQq25VYh/9HA1/LWdX2fYkYuVbCOmKi2TGlg4Bdc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=bbZmkQNz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="bbZmkQNz" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 743E7C4CED1; Sat, 7 Dec 2024 00:36:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1733531806; bh=mDJ4u2sWNM4Wc2C4iu8wZDrRG+u3RVs9876gX556cMw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bbZmkQNz8zwS6SRt1ZgRTOAGphess8VYXdowz3R/0xgwUZzAhTq4oNKXRwn5NOEyt ZR0sNINII0GNeOrSSKvTh6bOFGOgPAIopikamfxLHunfmhQcAFbTBBfrb3naOyT0rA oWVhxvlge686sql8gCucq0I1druEV1PvW6h/b+PGjuXw9NUqxMUd+gpiDt4FpxdOAy M+Ia5k9yY6lnJsUiiuXoMZNaNLin718YAFNAI5jfwi7KaDAl04bWPo2IlLMVOGtYr+ jNr6dghxy+V9Io4i28jBjW/ZKsGX/KadiaSbCB7k3kEFybNknc6gmF2MfcCnAbRzsg IfPaaIns+BGbg== Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 16:36:45 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen , Ritesh Harjani , Carlos Maiolino , Brian Foster , Pankaj Raghav , Daniel Gomez , Kundan Kumar , gost.dev@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: sb_spino_align is not verified Message-ID: References: <20241024025142.4082218-1-david@fromorbit.com> <20241024025142.4082218-4-david@fromorbit.com> <20241207003204.GQ7837@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241207003204.GQ7837@frogsfrogsfrogs> On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 04:32:04PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 04:25:22PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 01:51:05PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > > > It's just read in from the superblock and used without doing any > > > validity checks at all on the value. > > > > > > Fixes: fb4f2b4e5a82 ("xfs: add sparse inode chunk alignment superblock field") > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > > > > This is 59e43f5479cce106d71c0b91a297c7ad1913176c on v6.13-r1 now. > > > > This commit broke mounting 32k and 64k bs filesystems on 4k page size systems. > > Oddly, it does not break 16k or 8k bs. I took a quick glance and I can't > > easily identify a fix. > > > > I haven't had a chance yet to find a large page size system to see if > > 32k page size and 64k page size systems are affected as well. > > > > CIs in place did not pick up on this given fstests check script just > > bails out right away, we don't annotate this as a failure on fstests and > > the tests don't even get listed as failures on xunit. You'd have to have > > a trained curious eye to just monitor CIs and verify that all hosts > > actually were chugging along. I suppose we can enhance this by just > > assuming hosts which don't have results are assumed to be a failure. > > > > However if we want to enahnce this on fstests so that in the future we > > pick up on these failures more easily it would be good time to evaluate > > that now too. > > Known bug, already patched here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20241126202619.GO9438@frogsfrogsfrogs/ > > and PR to the release manager here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/173328206660.1159971.4540485910402305562.stg-ugh@frogsfrogsfrogs/ Woot, thanks! Luis