From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: kerneloops.org: 2.6.26-rc possible regression in ext3 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <4859EFE2.2090202@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Al Viro To: Arjan van de Ven Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:46397 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754147AbYFSGlG (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:41:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > and that "lea" is doing an address computation of "eax+2*ebx-2". Which > does *not* look like an address to a 32-bit entity, but to a 16-bit one. > Yeah, it's not conclusive, but it is suggestive. I'm wrong, that's just "eax+ebx-2". The *2 was just a brainfart on my part. But I think I have pinpointed where it comes from: it's the struct dx_map_entry *map; which is a structure like this: struct dx_map_entry { u32 hash; u16 offs; u16 size; }; and it does look like it's the if (size + map[i].size/2 > blocksize/2) calculation, where "i" counts backwards from "count-1" to 0. In particular, the code 27: 8d 4c 18 fe lea 0xfffffffe(%eax,%ebx,1),%ecx 2b:* 8b 19 mov (%ecx),%ebx <-- trapping instruction 2d: 83 e9 08 sub $0x8,%ecx 30: 89 d8 mov %ebx,%eax 32: 66 d1 e8 shr %ax 38: 8d 04 02 lea (%edx,%eax,1),%eax seems to be that "size + map[i].size/2" calculation, but I have a hard time trying to line it up with wat _my_ compiler gives me. But the nearest match I have is: movw 6(%ecx), %bx # .size, D.21305 subl $8, %ecx #, ivtmp.921 movl -104(%ebp), %edx # blocksize, tmp179 movl %ebx, %eax # D.21305, tmp176 shrw %ax # tmp176 movzwl %ax, %eax # tmp176, tmp177 leal (%esi,%eax), %eax #, tmp178 which seems to be largely the same thing (except I have a "movw" to load the size, and %ecx is offset by one 'map' entry - so the offset is 6 (in the memop) instead of that "-2" (from the lea). I think I'll give up, but that's the closest match I can find. No guarantees, but it seems to support the notion of "wrong 32-bit load where it should have used a 16-bit one". Linus