4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 8ee9fdbebc84b39f1d1c201c5e32277c61d034aa upstream.
On a ppc64 system, executing generic/256 test with 32k block size gives the following call trace,
XFS: Assertion failed: args->maxlen > 0, file: /root/repos/linux/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c, line: 2026
kernel BUG at /root/repos/linux/fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:113!
Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1]
SMP NR_CPUS=2048
DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
NUMA
pSeries
Modules linked in:
CPU: 2 PID: 19361 Comm: mkdir Not tainted 4.10.0-rc5 #58
task: c000000102606d80 task.stack: c0000001026b8000
NIP: c0000000004ef798 LR: c0000000004ef798 CTR: c00000000082b290
REGS: c0000001026bb090 TRAP: 0700 Not tainted (4.10.0-rc5)
MSR: 8000000000029032 <SF,EE,ME,IR,DR,RI>
CR: 28004428 XER: 00000000
CFAR: c0000000004ef180 SOFTE: 1
GPR00: c0000000004ef798 c0000001026bb310 c000000001157300 ffffffffffffffea
GPR04: 000000000000000a c0000001026bb130 0000000000000000 ffffffffffffffc0
GPR08: 00000000000000d1 0000000000000021 00000000ffffffd1 c000000000dd4990
GPR12: 0000000022004444 c00000000fe00800 0000000020000000 0000000000000000
GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000043a606fc 0000000043a76c08 0000000043a1b3d0
GPR20: 000001002a35cd60 c0000001026bbb80 0000000000000000 0000000000000001
GPR24: 0000000000000240 0000000000000004 c00000062dc55000 0000000000000000
GPR28: 0000000000000004 c00000062ecd9200 0000000000000000 c0000001026bb6c0
NIP [c0000000004ef798] .assfail+0x28/0x30
LR [c0000000004ef798] .assfail+0x28/0x30
Call Trace:
[c0000001026bb310] [c0000000004ef798] .assfail+0x28/0x30 (unreliable)
[c0000001026bb380] [c000000000455d74] .xfs_alloc_space_available+0x194/0x1b0
[c0000001026bb410] [c00000000045b914] .xfs_alloc_fix_freelist+0x144/0x480
[c0000001026bb580] [c00000000045c368] .xfs_alloc_vextent+0x698/0xa90
[c0000001026bb650] [c0000000004a6200] .xfs_ialloc_ag_alloc+0x170/0x820
[c0000001026bb7c0] [c0000000004a9098] .xfs_dialloc+0x158/0x320
[c0000001026bb8a0] [c0000000004e628c] .xfs_ialloc+0x7c/0x610
[c0000001026bb990] [c0000000004e8138] .xfs_dir_ialloc+0xa8/0x2f0
[c0000001026bbaa0] [c0000000004e8814] .xfs_create+0x494/0x790
[c0000001026bbbf0] [c0000000004e5ebc] .xfs_generic_create+0x2bc/0x410
[c0000001026bbce0] [c0000000002b4a34] .vfs_mkdir+0x154/0x230
[c0000001026bbd70] [c0000000002bc444] .SyS_mkdirat+0x94/0x120
[c0000001026bbe30] [c00000000000b760] system_call+0x38/0xfc
Instruction dump:
4e800020 60000000 7c0802a6 7c862378 3c82ffca 7ca72b78 38841c18 7c651b78
38600000 f8010010 f821ff91 4bfff94d <0fe00000> 60000000 7c0802a6 7c892378
When block size is larger than inode cluster size, the call to
XFS_B_TO_FSBT(mp, mp->m_inode_cluster_size) returns 0. Also, mkfs.xfs
would have set xfs_sb->sb_inoalignmt to 0. This causes
xfs_ialloc_cluster_alignment() to return 0. Due to this
args.minalignslop (in xfs_ialloc_ag_alloc()) gets the unsigned
equivalent of -1 assigned to it. This later causes alloc_len in
xfs_alloc_space_available() to have a value of 0. In such a scenario
when args.total is also 0, the assert statement "ASSERT(args->maxlen >
0);" fails.
This commit fixes the bug by replacing the call to XFS_B_TO_FSBT() in
xfs_ialloc_cluster_alignment() with a call to xfs_icluster_size_fsb().
Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c
@@ -51,8 +51,7 @@ xfs_ialloc_cluster_alignment(
struct xfs_mount *mp)
{
if (xfs_sb_version_hasalign(&mp->m_sb) &&
- mp->m_sb.sb_inoalignmt >=
- XFS_B_TO_FSBT(mp, mp->m_inode_cluster_size))
+ mp->m_sb.sb_inoalignmt >= xfs_icluster_size_fsb(mp))
return mp->m_sb.sb_inoalignmt;
return 1;
}