public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@thebarn.com>
To: Stuart MENEFY <stuart.menefy@st.com>
Cc: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@thebarn.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Help debugging a use after free
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:24:49 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49F09651.6010104@xfs.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49F092D6.4070507@st.com>

Stuart MENEFY wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:30:09PM +0100, Stuart MENEFY wrote:
>>     
>>>> If you can instrument actually free that is causing the problem it
>>>> would be good to print out the
>>>> actually pid doing the free and as many return addresses that you can,
>>>> so we can get an
>>>> idea of the actual call chain.
>>>>         
>>> The free is coming from the xfssyncd thread, the back trace looks like:
>>>
>>> [<8418d0e2>] xfs_idestroy+0x22/0x100
>>> [<8418a1b0>] xfs_ireclaim+0x50/0x80
>>> [<841ad7f2>] xfs_finish_reclaim+0x32/0x1c0
>>> [<841ada30>] xfs_finish_reclaim_all+0xb0/0x100
>>> [<8418a780>] xfs_ilock_nowait+0x0/0x160
>>> [<841a9df2>] xfs_syncsub+0x52/0x360
>>> [<84335108>] schedule_timeout+0x48/0x100
>>> [<841ab684>] xfs_sync+0x24/0x40
>>> [<841e0ce0>] list_add+0x0/0x20
>>> [<841c041c>] vfs_sync+0x1c/0x40
>>> [<841bf37c>] vfs_sync_worker+0x1c/0x60
>>> [<841bf6b6>] xfssyncd+0xb6/0x140
>>> [<8402f0dc>] kthread+0x3c/0x80
>>> [<84012440>] complete+0x0/0x60
>>> [<841bf600>] xfssyncd+0x0/0x140
>>> [<8402f060>] kthread_should_stop+0x0/0x20
>>> [<84003984>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x20
>>> [<8402f0a0>] kthread+0x0/0x80
>>> [<84003980>] kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x20
>>>       
>> There were some use-after-free fixes in .27 timeframe to the inode
>> reclaim code. Can you reeetest with a more recent kernel?
>>     
>
> Possibly. I have a half-finished port of 2.6.27-rc4
>  to our hardware
> which I could probably get going fairly quickly. Do you think that
> would be sufficient to pick up the use-after-free fixes?
>
> Thanks
>
> Stuart
>
>   
Any reason you are using an rc4? vs 2.6.27?

I would simply run a diff over rc4 fs/xfs and 2.6.27 fs/xfs and see what
is different if anything.


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-23 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-13 17:42 Help debugging a use after free Stuart MENEFY
2009-04-14 19:10 ` Russell Cattelan
2009-04-17 15:30   ` Stuart MENEFY
2009-04-19  8:17     ` Dave Chinner
2009-04-23 16:09       ` Stuart MENEFY
2009-04-23 16:24         ` Russell Cattelan [this message]
2009-04-23 18:37           ` Stuart MENEFY
2009-04-23 21:35             ` Russell Cattelan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=49F09651.6010104@xfs.org \
    --to=cattelan@thebarn.com \
    --cc=stuart.menefy@st.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox