On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:09 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 15/06/2023 21:38, Anna Schumaker wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:04 PM Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 9:01 AM Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 4:55 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 15/06/2023 10:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>> On 14/06/2023 22:55, Anna Schumaker wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Still null ptr (built on 420b2d4 with your patch): > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We're through the merge window and at rc1 now, so I can spend more > >>>>>>>>> time scratching my head over your bug again. We've come up with a > >>>>>>>>> patch (attached) that adds a bunch of printks to show us what the > >>>>>>>>> kernel thinks is going on. Do you mind trying it out and letting us > >>>>>>>>> know what gets printed out? You'll need to make sure > >>>>>>>>> CONFIG_NFS_V4_2_READ_PLUS is enabled when compiling the kernel. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The patch does not apply. I tried: v6.4-rc1, v6.4-rc5, next-20230609. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can you try the attached patch on top of my 3-patch series from the > >>>>>>> other day, and let me know what gets printed out? It adds a bunch of > >>>>>>> printk()s at strategic points to print out what is going on with the > >>>>>>> xdr scratch buffer since it's suddenly a bad memory address after > >>>>>>> working for a bit on your machine. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here you have entire log - attached (113 kB, I hope goes past mailing > >>>>>> lists/spam filters). > >>>>> > >>>>> As expected this bounced from the mailing lists, but I hope you got it. > >>>>> If not, let me know. > >>>> > >>>> I did still receive it. Thanks! > >>> > >>> Can you swap out yesterday's patch with this patch? I've adjusted what > >>> gets printed out, and added printk()s to xdr_copy_to_scratch(). I'm > >>> starting to think that the xdr scratch buffer is fine, and that it's > >>> the other pointer passed to memcpy() in that function that's the > >>> problem, and the output from this patch will confirm for me. > >> > >> Oh, and can you add this one on top of the v2 patch as well? > > > > Sorry about the noise today. Can you use this patch instead of the two > > I attached earlier? I cleaned up the output and cut down on extra > > output.. > > > > Here you have - attached. This is good, thanks! I was finally able to figure out how to hit the bug using a 32bit x86 VM, so hopefully the next thing you hear from me is a patch fixing the bug! Anna > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
