On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 06:57:04PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/22/22 6:13 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 08:19:51PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 5/21/22 7:07 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On 5/21/22 5:13 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>> [cc io_uring]
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 06:52:37PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >>>>> From: "Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hey everyone,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please note that this patch series contains patches that will be
> >>>>> rejected by the fstests mailing list because of the amount of changes
> >>>>> they contain. So tools like b4 will not be able to find the whole patch
> >>>>> series on a mailing list. In case it's helpful I've added the
> >>>>> "fstests.vfstest.for-next" tag which can be pulled. Otherwise it's
> >>>>> possible to simply use the patch series as it appears in your inbox.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All vfstests pass:
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>> #### xfs ####
> >>>>> ubuntu@imp1-vm:~/src/git/xfstests$ sudo ./check -g idmapped
> >>>>> FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
> >>>>> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 imp1-vm 5.18.0-rc4-fs-mnt-hold-writers-8a2e2350494f #107 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon May 9 12:12:34 UTC 2022
> >>>>> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f /dev/sda4
> >>>>> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sda4 /mnt/scratch
> >>>>>
> >>>>> generic/633 58s ... 58s
> >>>>> generic/644 62s ... 60s
> >>>>> generic/645 161s ... 161s
> >>>>> generic/656 62s ... 63s
> >>>>> xfs/152 133s ... 133s
> >>>>> xfs/153 94s ... 92s
> >>>>> Ran: generic/633 generic/644 generic/645 generic/656 xfs/152 xfs/153
> >>>>> Passed all 6 tests
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure if it's this series that has introduced a test bug or
> >>>> triggered a latent issue in the kernel, but I've started seeing
> >>>> generic/633 throw audit subsystem warnings on a single test machine
> >>>> as of late Friday:
> >>>>
> >>>> [ 7285.015888] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 2147118 at kernel/auditsc.c:2035 __audit_syscall_entry+0x113/0x140
> >>>
> >>> Does your kernel have this commit?
> >>>
> >>> commit 69e9cd66ae1392437234a63a3a1d60b6655f92ef
> >>> Author: Julian Orth <ju.orth@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Tue May 17 12:32:53 2022 +0200
> >>>
> >>> audit,io_uring,io-wq: call __audit_uring_exit for dummy contexts
> >
> > No, that wasn't in -rc7.
> >
> >> I could not reproduce either with or without your patch when I finally
> >> got that test going and figure out how to turn on audit and get it
> >> enabled. I don't run with that.
> >
> > Ok. Given that this has been broken for over a year and nobody
> > has noticed until late .18-rcX, it might be worth adding an audit
> > enabled VM to your io-uring test farm....
>
> It was in the 5.16 release, so it's ~4 months ago. Don't disagree on the
Huh. The commit that it fixes is dated Feb 2021:
commit 5bd2182d58e9d9c6279b7a8a2f9b41add0e7f9cb
Author: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Feb 16 19:46:48 2021 -0500
audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring
I guess it must have sat in a tree somewhere for 6 months before
before being merged.
> testing, though I do think that's mostly on the audit side. I had no
> hand in any of that code.
Fair enough.
> From my experience trying to reproduce it yesterday, my test distros
> don't even enable it and you have to both fiddle the config and add a
> boot parameter to even turn it on. And then it still didn't trigger for
> me.
I have machines with audit enabled as it seems to be the debian
default these days. I haven't explicitly turned it on - it's just
there. I guess it came along with selinux being enabled on these
test VMs - I have "selinux=1 security=selinux" on the kernel CLI for
these VMs.
Apart from that, I have no clue as to why this one particular
VM tripped this and none of the others with similar selinux/audit
configs have had any problems...
> I'll see if I can add something to the testing mix for this.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
