From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DB3C31E5B for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3A8206E0 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730248AbfFRSsX (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:48:23 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:50684 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729642AbfFRSsX (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:48:23 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hdJ9Z-00015d-D9; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:48:21 +0000 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:48:21 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Vicente Bergas Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: d_lookup: Unable to handle kernel paging request Message-ID: <20190618184821.GC17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <23950bcb-81b0-4e07-8dc8-8740eb53d7fd@gmail.com> <20190522135331.GM17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20190522162945.GN17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <10192e43-c21d-44e4-915d-bf77a50c22c4@gmail.com> <20190618183548.GB17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190618183548.GB17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:35:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > So far it looks like something is buggering a forward reference > in hash chain in a fairly specific way - the values seen had been > 00000000010000000 and > 00008800010000000. Does that smell like anything from arm64-specific > data structures (PTE, etc.)? make that 0000000001000000 and 0000880001000000 resp. Tests in the patch are correct, just mistyped it here... > Alternatively, we might've gone off rails a step (or more) before, > with the previous iteration going through bogus, but at least mapped > address - the one that has never been a dentry in the first place.