On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Anna Schumaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:04 PM Anna Schumaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 9:01 AM Anna Schumaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 4:55 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > <[email protected]> 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..
>
> Thanks,
> Anna
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anna
> >
> > >
> > > Anna
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Krzysztof
> > > >
On 15/06/2023 21:38, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Anna Schumaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 1:04 PM Anna Schumaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 9:01 AM Anna Schumaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 4:55 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>> <[email protected]> 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.
Best regards,
Krzysztof