From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) (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 E76D5159574 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.138 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706566409; cv=none; b=nKByP42nsZ2NLvJPne8CvkhTEzvP3zPfl4Cu+YN/kFZgsCgj26U6RWz8p+BqBq2MvaCsXBxtUhJp3bT59SKE8aG3DQAdusY/hfa8iy1fi2Kw8lwwXvqorz6oW5SHwUfLDxx4t6VgylnfkdIigHygXzjvLVWe9ZhXjJHV74PYKsI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706566409; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+UBZjeypPym8/ohCgDx7XPk3dKBYj0DKy9qt8tmB0c8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mgFPWhzejKNtxjTxTVybskbRLMULPHqvSPdJQ5cuSLG9g4xXgPrEEP2NHOjVRHjXx9dwaSy6Peano3YbLmIuLiAcZxWQQFH5dbCT2elsbe4817pCH7CCXOL4XZAZjruTanW/DKg1exakKjvlhiwXxHBU8GQj0hp+fGFCmS993Fo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=mFuXXzit; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.138 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="mFuXXzit" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2DB80ECA for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:13:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 6C2DB80ECA Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=mFuXXzit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.398 X-Spam-Level: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d1u6_dqoiz0z for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DB2580E3E for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:13:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 7DB2580E3E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=JCXBqSej7X9xmvzctrfkV79cun5I2fkyVI7US30JjdE=; b=mFuXXzitjEl/D4S9MwNvPSNvyP 4Zh9bQ56Tivc6zdM3tycSmZ40z9HLNru8T8m8ZVEDTGHaJiA9wgXMvBl0c9B/SVlY+zCehUbpIH+n GgiIAVCSy5ViY3Qez4hJx2+cZB3bPhngceltE5+kzpWf8EpnXvfTu4uih72uTFCcKqkLOHM+FWY4e bQSzjnjiiXu0xmKfhzDFZ+hUALCv9fKZ696W1uj8eZQW/QgQmv9SdBGUtT2Ex7nmh2D6u3NDcUvvD 9pDr27IRWQlHXdaSRd9HUyvHK8THCcXGvImArL4HtmDtlJgsbyZ1jfIijH4rkNA3KKOHpOSbtpXNd 4y41i2Fg==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rUZsW-000000080xV-08D6; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:13:20 +0000 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:13:19 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Dave Kleikamp Cc: Manas Ghandat , Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzbot+411debe54d318eaed386@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH] jfs: fix shift-out-of-bounds in dbJoin Message-ID: References: <20231011143937.31996-1-ghandatmanas@gmail.com> <551e1e86-f990-487a-ad88-53799df0882a@oracle.com> <37af8f84-98bc-4733-bd9c-102b62fdd028@oracle.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37af8f84-98bc-4733-bd9c-102b62fdd028@oracle.com> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:17:27PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On 1/29/24 12:29PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:00:56AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > > On 1/29/24 8:55AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 08:39:18AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > > > > On 1/28/24 2:49PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:09:37PM +0530, Manas Ghandat wrote: > > > > > > > Currently while joining the leaf in a buddy system there is shift out > > > > > > > of bound error in calculation of BUDSIZE. Added the required check > > > > > > > to the BUDSIZE and fixed the documentation as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch causes xfstests to fail frequently. The one this trace is > > > > > > from was generic/074. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for catching this. The sanity test is not right, so we need to revert > > > > > that one. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, my overnight test run with this patch reverted crashed > > > > again with the same signature. I also reverted the parent commit, > > > > and when that crashed I also reverted the parent of that. Which also > > > > crashed. > > > > > > > > So maybe there's something else that makes this unstable. Or maybe my > > > > bisect went wrong. Or _something_. Anyway, I'm going to spend much of > > > > today hammering on generic/074 with various kernel versions and see what > > > > I can deduce. > > > > > > > > So far I see no evidence that v6.7 crashes with g/074. And I know that > > > > next-20240125 does crash with g/074. I'm pretty sure that v6.8-rc1 also > > > > crashes with g/074, but will confirm that. > > > > > > I'll try to beat on it too and see what I find. > > > > > > Sasha, maybe hold up on to all the jfs patches for the time being. > > > > I have it reproducing easily on cca974daeb6c. I ran it a lot on > > e0e1958f4c36 and have not reproduced it. So I'm going back to my > > earlier assertion that cca974daeb6c is bad. Now, maybe other commits > > are also bad? > > I was able to reproduce it too, but not after reverting that one. I believe > it is the only one causing problems. > > I only asked Sasha to hold the other ones as a precaution until we were more > confident that this one was the problem. I can't reproduce any problem with v6.8-rc1 + this one reverted. So I'm not sure what my overnight soak test found. I'll try a few other things ...