Re: 3.9.3: Oops running xfstests

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

 



On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:21:17PM -0400, CAI Qian wrote:
> Fedora-19 based distro and LVM partitions.

Cai: As I've asked previously please include all the relevant
information about your test system and the workload it is running
when the problem occurs.  Stack traces aren't any good to us in
isolation, and just dumping them on us causes unnecessary round
trips.

http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F


> [  304.898489] ============================================================================= 
> [  304.898489] BUG kmalloc-4096 (Tainted: G      D     ): Padding overwritten. 0xffff8801fbeb7c28-0xffff8801fbeb7fff 
> [  304.898490] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> [  304.898490]  
> [  304.898491] INFO: Slab 0xffffea0007efac00 objects=7 used=7 fp=0x          (null) flags=0x20000000004080 
> [  304.898492] Pid: 357, comm: systemd-udevd Tainted: G    B D      3.9.3 #1 
> [  304.898492] Call Trace: 
> [  304.898495]  [<ffffffff81181ed2>] slab_err+0xc2/0xf0 
> [  304.898497]  [<ffffffff8118176d>] ? init_object+0x3d/0x70 
> [  304.898498]  [<ffffffff81181ff5>] slab_pad_check.part.41+0xf5/0x170 
> [  304.898500]  [<ffffffff811bda63>] ? seq_read+0x2e3/0x3b0 
> [  304.898501]  [<ffffffff811820e3>] check_slab+0x73/0x100 
> [  304.898503]  [<ffffffff81606b50>] alloc_debug_processing+0x21/0x118 
> [  304.898504]  [<ffffffff8160772f>] __slab_alloc+0x3b8/0x4a2 
> [  304.898506]  [<ffffffff81161b57>] ? vma_link+0xb7/0xc0 
> [  304.898508]  [<ffffffff811bda63>] ? seq_read+0x2e3/0x3b0 
> [  304.898509]  [<ffffffff81184dd1>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1b1/0x200 
> [  304.898510]  [<ffffffff811bda63>] seq_read+0x2e3/0x3b0 
> [  304.898512]  [<ffffffff8119c56c>] vfs_read+0x9c/0x170 
> [  304.898513]  [<ffffffff8119c939>] sys_read+0x49/0xa0 
> [  304.898514]  [<ffffffff81619359>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b 

That's something different, and indicates memory corruption is being
seen as a result of something that is occuring through the /proc or
/sys filesystems. Unrelated to XFS, I think...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux XFS Devel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux