On 11-02-20 01:15 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 12:05:27AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: >> I suppose it must be, as there's no other 0x3c offset in that function. >> Which means it's probably this line that's crashing: >> >> BUG_ON(pa->pa_obj_lock != &ei->i_prealloc_lock); >> >> ...which could only happen if "pa" was NULL there. >> I wonder how that happened ? > > Which could only happen if ei->i_prealloc_list were not properly > initialized (i..e, it was still NULL). Which shouldn't ever > happen...., since all ext4_inodes are initialized in > ext4_alloc_inode(). > > Hmm, can you replicate the crash? So far it has been a one time deal here, but stuff like this is pretty serious nonetheless. I suppose it could also happen if another thread did a list-delete at the same time as that function was running. Which would require that there be a locking bug/confusion somewhere. Looking over the code, most places use rcu to protect accesses, except for the fragment that crashed. That's probably just fine, but something to reexamine just out of paranoia. Also, the spinlock pointer appears to be dynamic, one of two possible spinlocks. Maybe something got confused there (well, obviously *something* got confused, so..). Tough nut to crack, but if I saw strangeness like this again I'd get really concerned about the state of our top grade filesystems (had an XFS crash recently on a totally different machine). I'll poke a bit more, looking specifically at recent ext4 changes. Thanks Ted. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
