From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-108-mta14.mxroute.com (mail-108-mta14.mxroute.com [136.175.108.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C740B79CD for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 04:31:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=136.175.108.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705465881; cv=none; b=f8WvT8St9mcivi12EQkc2LadIvwbqE0QTaRn0SaXRxdiCCdKDTEauBARcQPLbJ6Egts6yYr5a78xQ6MsDVPYt01RvqJ5TERVtpu5NdrZRnePWxRTPLGDNemo/RziZAVc4NgVtB3y/UMhWEFRM7kbeipJN2b/oWVtBs092zSRAGg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705465881; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g5XwA68Tzm66tE0CeZSiZUxSDZlh7kdyFhFH44zkMdw=; h=Received:X-Zone-Loop:X-Originating-IP:DKIM-Signature:References: User-agent:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Authenticated-Id; b=iZHXpRq5jqBBbH8sOIc0I4tDF84cGdj773xCxuUZfUYUEPjq4CAwpx483D3MG5aTeOIKpZKIgbHwwrZIIh4UNtSnpTMxQcikMb0A5zg77nLSiKt1JZdyOh3i2qDs6xX0Ye2E0xlmocv34rd0Psw34hhEMtmZ4SkmD3Pep41d2nk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=damenly.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=damenly.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=damenly.org header.i=@damenly.org header.b=w4lki+Ti; arc=none smtp.client-ip=136.175.108.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=damenly.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=damenly.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=damenly.org header.i=@damenly.org header.b="w4lki+Ti" Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.2] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta14.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 18d15ab5ffe0003727.003 for (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Wed, 17 Jan 2024 04:26:09 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 770d2c344c2453a9966cd0b0fed2cb754be4c2b0afda DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=damenly.org ; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-reply-to:Date:Subject:Cc:To: From:References:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wB2+B/WqHYgJkbDVwVJ3KvTO1gZYQC+mOlnFtIbglgM=; b=w4lki+Ti0Sq6PwvlHoTuVMTha2 /FkSDMt3f+zHszt2eO5TaaWw9+nIkjgvot3dGZ15oG/HSUxdSDdq0IMPrkwTLPgNL2SRu+O1x6HHX CxRJ97T0xFm42fnvnyoOj35RiVxT79J55Xr4ioR5vU7hzg1vrPpB5pWLTqm0xjN9HJvNIjrQ35hQI 35gF320Y55iB7BAJMgWTIR6tEuV/pggn1ZbQjNNuIcxh2jdQLG4wr1i+uNJxhFqaDbRileXapOybo Oqh6c5VxE+Rfj+w4Y7rOTA4/gDX3JUrHXlsd/cWmIi1FyTM21oFMCRtpY6R4Gb7rBuP7JYscLkSll wfpqKbRw==; References: User-agent: mu4e 1.7.5; emacs 28.2 From: Su Yue To: Kent Overstreet Cc: Brian Foster , linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x280766500040001: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 12:20:55 +0800 In-reply-to: Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Authenticated-Id: l@damenly.org On Tue 16 Jan 2024 at 12:33, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:24:48PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:03:09PM -0500, Kent Overstreet >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:33:08AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: >> > > Hi Kent, >> > > >> > > JFYI, I'm seeing the following splat pretty reliably via >> > > generic/361 on >> > > an 80xcpu test box. The CI doesn't seem to produce this >> > > failure for >> > > whatever reason. This bisects down to commit 023f9ac9f70f >> > > ("bcachefs: >> > > Delete dio read alignment check"), before which the test >> > > still fails but >> > > the kernel doesn't explode. >> > > >> > > Brian >> > > >> > >> > Can you test the following? >> > >> >> Still blows up... repeated a couple times to be sure. > > That sounds like a driver bug then - what driver? I think it's not a drive bug. It's related to bcachefs block_size. I can reproduce it by running generic/361 with block_size 4096. The test devices are normal qemu disks backing by files in host. The bug disappears after hanging mkfs block_size to 512. -- Su