Re: [linux-next][XFS][trinity] WARNING: CPU: 32 PID: 31369 at fs/iomap.c:993

Eric Sandeen
2017-09-18T22:01:02Z

On 9/18/17 4:31 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:28:55AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 09/18/2017 09:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 08:26:05PM +0530, Abdul Haleem wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> A warning is triggered from:
>>>>
>>>> file fs/iomap.c in function iomap_dio_rw
>>>>
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> goto out_free_dio;
>>>>
>>>> ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(mapping,
>>>> start >> PAGE_SHIFT, end >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>>>> WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
>>>> ret = 0;
>>>>
>>>> inode_dio_begin(inode);
>>>
>>> This is expected and an indication of a problematic workload - which
>>> may be triggered by a fuzzer.
>>
>> If it's expected, why don't we kill the WARN_ON_ONCE()? I get it all
>> the time running xfstests as well.
>
> Because when a user reports a data corruption, the only evidence we
> have that they are running an app that does something stupid is this
> warning in their syslogs. Tracepoints are not useful for replacing
> warnings about data corruption vectors being triggered.

Is the full WARN_ON spew really helpful to us, though? Certainly
the user has no idea what it means, and will come away terrified
but none the wiser.

Would a more informative printk_once() still give us the evidence
without the ZOMG I THINK I OOPSED that a WARN_ON produces? Or do we
want/need the backtrace?

-Eric

> It needs to be on by default, bu tI'm sure we can wrap it with
> something like an xfs_alert_tag() type of construct so the tag can
> be set in /proc/fs/xfs/panic_mask to suppress it if testers so
> desire.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>