On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:25:21PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:39:27PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > >> Hrm... OK, seeing that you still seem to trigger those within an hour or > >> two (and *any* of remaining WARN_ON() are serious bugs - none of the > >> "mitigation had been triggered" remained, sorry for not making it clear), > >> let's try this. Again, any WARN_ON triggered means that we'd caught something, > >> whether it progresses into oops or not. > > > > Any news on that one? I'm going to carve fixes for understood bugs out of > > that one and put those into tonight push, but it would be nice to sort out > > all remaining crap lurking in that area... > > > > Another question: what about the very first trace you'd posted, with apparent > > GPF at 00000050? Have you seen anything like that afterwards? > > No, I did not have time to retest. > > GPF at 00000050 was not mine, it was Mickaël's. Ah, OK - his is basically a forced nd->stack[] underrun, with passing a never-assigned nd->link_inode to atime_needs_update(), so we are just passing a contents of uninitialized stack word there and while it ends up possible to dereference, it's not an address of struct inode and the first attempt to follow a pointer in what would've been a struct inode at that address (accessing inode->i_sb->s_flags) did blow up with GPF at offsetof(struct super_block, s_flags). All right, so we basically have several understood ones with fixes plus something unknown that leads to lookup_fast() returning 0 with NULL in *inode in about an hour or two on your setup... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
