Re: [BUG REPORT] linux-next/fs-next released on 6th September fails to boot

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am Di., 10. Sept. 2024 um 08:45 Uhr schrieb Chandan Babu R
<chandanbabu@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 06:11:29 PM +0200, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> > I'll send a patch with this fix a bit later, once
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20240906143453.179506-1-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > is merged to prevent merge conflicts later on.
> >
> > Am Mo., 9. Sept. 2024 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Alexander Mikhalitsyn
> > <alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>
> >> Dear Chandan,
> >>
> >> Please can you check if the following patch resolves issue for your
> >> workload:
>
> Hi Alexander,

Hi Chandan,

>
> I am sorry. I now see that the bug is present even after commit
> 9dc504f244895def513a0f2982c909103d4ab345 (virtio_fs: allow idmapped mounts) is
> reverted. I was using kexec to boot into new kernels during the bisect
> operation.

It's not a surprise, that revert of
9dc504f244895def513a0f2982c909103d4ab345 (virtio_fs: allow idmapped
mounts)
itself does not help, because really this commit does nothing and can
take effect only if the userspace side
activates idmapping support.

At the same time, from the call stack that you provided I can see that
crash happens on:

   42.672223]  <TASK>
[   42.672226]  ? die_addr+0x41/0xa0
[   42.672238]  ? exc_general_protection+0x14c/0
x230
[   42.672250]  ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x26/0x30
[   42.672260]  ? fuse_get_req+0x77a/0x990 [fuse]
[   42.672281]  ? fuse_get_req+0x36b/0x990 [fuse]
<CUT>
[   42.672376]  fuse_simple_background+0xe7/0x180 [fuse]
[   42.672406]  cuse_channel_open+0x540/0x710 [cuse]
[   42.672415]  misc_open+0x2a7/0x3a0
[   42.672424]  chrdev_open+0x1ef/0x5f0
<CUT>
[   42.726570]  ? __pfx_do_filp_open+0x10/0x10
[   42.726981]  ? do_syscall_64+0x64/0x170

which corresponds to CUSE.

I would suggest applying that patch I sent yesterday and try it out.

>
> However, now when I do a normal kernel installation (i.e. make modules_install
> && make install) and reboot into the new kernel, I am noticing that the kernel
> fails to boot even with alleged bad commit reverted. I will write back with
> more details.
>
> Apologies, for the inadvertent mistake.

Kind regards,
Alex

>
> --
> Chandan




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux USB Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux