linux-ext4 - Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:1914

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 16:24:30 +0200
From:   Marcus Hoffmann <marcus.hoffmann@...ermo.de>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, famzah@...soft.com, jack@...e.cz,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:1914 - page_buffers()

On 12.05.23 14:19, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Marcus Hoffmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 18:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, sorry, I didn't see it since it was in an attachment as opposed
>>> to with an explicit [PATCH] subject line.
>>>
>>> And at this point, the data=journal writeback patches have landed in
>>> the ext4/dev tree, and while we could try to see if we could land this
>>> before the next merge window, I'm worried about merge or semantic
>>> conflicts of having both patches in a tree at one time.
>>>
>>> I guess we could send it to Linus, let it get backported into stable,
>>> and then revert it during the merge window, ahead of applying the
>>> data=journal cleanup patch series.  But that seems a bit ugly.  Or we
>>> could ask for an exception from the stable kernel folks, after I do a
>>> full set of xfstests runs on it.  (Of course, I don't think anyone has
>>> been able to create a reliable reproducer, so all we can do is to test
>>> for regression failures.)
>>>
>>> Jan, Greg, what do you think?
>>
>> We've noticed this appearing for us as well now (on 5.15 with
>> data=journaled) and I wanted to ask what the status here is. Did any fix
>> here make it into a stable kernel yet? If not, I suppose I can still
>> apply the patch posted above as a quick-fix until this (or another
>> solution) makes it into the stable tree?
>
> Any reason you can't just move to 6.1.y instead?  What prevents that?
>

We will move to 6.1.y soon-ish (we are downstream from the rpi kernel tree)
Is this problem fixed there though? I couldn't really find anything
related to that in the tree?

Best,
Marcus
________________________________

othermo GmbH | Sitz der Gesellschaft: Alzenau | Amtsgericht Aschaffenburg: HRB 14783 | USt-IdNr.: DE319977978 | Geschäftsführung: Dr. Dennis Metz.