From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9560DC433F5 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 01:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230142AbiJJBbr (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Oct 2022 21:31:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33336 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230290AbiJJBbo (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Oct 2022 21:31:44 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EBEF46627 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2022 18:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4937B80DFE for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 01:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 943C6C4347C for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 01:31:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1665365500; bh=3Gnt1i5gtLS0EljPqhJpGbWuk9c7tIPX78qIB7JX1/Y=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bf2CjdNDFBpWJyeAbJrZ3rFJCxc4aqJ3j3NRSlDdVltGVbUlgxx/iIcASWIrhkv7X hXZ5ERrlQIPwQiuxYkpoa9HnEawF4EsO6wjdCV20abOzzduERIrBfOHL2e461Gfm9C qBwmZkHJVrePuJCOEuktHcnE1KWeyvm5if2ECBJcfel94x8y+n8qBHggh+mFX59Xyt 8Lx/70KCduPlkJKwH9mnP6ObaCnFEl1F9qQKJWXHPHwOdpEpk+toqwzfZlkfClJuhY OgiAwzmTWMx0RJ5yVJzhC4eXsVeyUp7TY8mLS/4klkdg7GiqmmGR0qlEvp665Oj5Ma gq51UfS5+6mZw== Received: by aws-us-west-2-korg-bugzilla-1.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 7C4FDC072A6; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 01:31:40 +0000 (UTC) From: bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: [Bug 216566] [xfstests generic/648] BUG: unable to handle page fault, RIP: 0010:__xfs_dir3_data_check+0x171/0x700 [xfs] Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 01:31:40 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: AssignedTo filesystem_xfs@kernel-bugs.kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Product: File System X-Bugzilla-Component: XFS X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.5 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: zlang@redhat.com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: filesystem_xfs@kernel-bugs.kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216566 --- Comment #2 from Zorro Lang (zlang@redhat.com) --- (In reply to Dave Chinner from comment #1) > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 05:47:49PM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org wrot= e: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216566 > >=20 > > Bug ID: 216566 > > Summary: [xfstests generic/648] BUG: unable to handle page > > fault, RIP: 0010:__xfs_dir3_data_check+0x171/0x700 > > [xfs] > > Product: File System > > Version: 2.5 > > Kernel Version: v6.1-rc0 > > Hardware: All > > OS: Linux > > Tree: Mainline > > Status: NEW > > Severity: normal > > Priority: P1 > > Component: XFS > > Assignee: filesystem_xfs@kernel-bugs.kernel.org > > Reporter: zlang@redhat.com > > Regression: No > >=20 > > xfstests generic/648 hit kernel panic[1] on xfs with 64k directory block > size > > (-n size=3D65536), before panic, there's a kernel assertion (not sure i= f it's > > related). > >=20 > > It's reproducable, but not easy. Generally I reproduced it by loop runn= ing > > generic/648 on xfs (-n size=3D65536) hundreds of time. > >=20 > > The last time I hit this panic on linux with HEAD=3D >=20 > Given that there have been no changes to XFS committed in v6.1-rc0 > at this point in time, this won't be an XFS regression unless you > can reproduce it on 6.0 or 5.19 kernels, too. Regardless, I'd suggest > bisection is in order to find where the problem was introduced. It's not a regression recently, I even can reproduce it on RHEL-9 (which ba= se on 5.14 kernel). >=20 > -Dave. --=20 You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.=