On 4/9/18 1:32 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/9/18 12:38 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 09 2018 at 11:51am -0400,
>> Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 08 2018 at 12:00am -0400,
>>> Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The following kernel oops(divide error) is triggered when running
>>>> xfstest(generic/347) on ext4.
>>>>
>>>> [ 442.632954] run fstests generic/347 at 2018-04-07 18:06:44
>>>> [ 443.839480] divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
>>>> [ 443.840201] Dumping ftrace buffer:
>>>> [ 443.840692] (ftrace buffer empty)
>> ...
>>>> [ 443.845756] CPU: 1 PID: 29607 Comm: dmsetup Not tainted 4.16.0_f605ba97fb80_master+ #1
>>>> [ 443.846968] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.10.2-2.fc27 04/01/2014
>>>> [ 443.848147] RIP: 0010:pool_io_hints+0x77/0x153 [dm_thin_pool]
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I was able to reproduce (in my case RIP was pool_io_hints+0x45)
>>>
>>> Which on my kernel, is:
>>>
>>> crash> dis -l pool_io_hints+0x45
>>> /root/snitm/git/linux/drivers/md/dm-thin.c: 2748
>>> 0xffffffffc0765165 <pool_io_hints+69>: div %rdi
>>>
>>> Which is drivers/md/dm-thin.c:is_factor()'s return
>>> !sector_div(block_size, n);
>>>
>>> SO looking at pool_io_hints() it would seem limits->max_sectors is 0 for
>>> this xfstests device... why would that be!?
>>>
>>> Clearly pool_io_hints() could stand to be more defensive with a
>>> !limits->max_sectors negative check but is it ever really valid for
>>> max_sectors to be 0?
>>>
>>> Pretty sure the ultimate bug is outside DM (but not seeing an obvious
>>> place where block core would set max_sectors to 0, all blk-settings.c
>>> uses min_not_zero(), etc).
>>
>> I successfully ran this test against the linux-dm.git
>> "for-4.17/dm-changes" tag that Linus merged after the block changes:
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git tags/for-4.17/dm-changes
>>
>> # ./check tests/generic/347
>> FSTYP -- ext4
>> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 thegoat 4.16.0-rc5.snitm
>> MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/mapper/test-xfstests_scratch
>> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr /dev/mapper/test-xfstests_scratch /scratch
>>
>> generic/347 65s
>> Ran: generic/347
>> Passed all 1 tests
>>
>> SO this would seem to implicate some regression in the 4.17 block layer
>> changes.
>
> No immediate ideas come to mind, we didn't have a lot of changes and I
> don't see anything that looks problematic. Maybe you can try and
> bisect it and see what you come up with?
I ran it, problematic commit is:
commit 3c8ba0d61d04ced9f8d9ff93977995a9e4e96e91
Author: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Mar 30 18:52:36 2018 -0700
kernel.h: Retain constant expression output for max()/min()
--
Jens Axboe
