From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: EXT4 Oops (Re: [PATCH V15 06/22] mmc: block: Add blk-mq support)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 19:39:25 +0300
Message-ID: <24166154-8b08-bab6-ac8e-618eeba30674@gmail.com>
References: <1511962879-24262-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com>
 <1511962879-24262-7-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com>
 <bc65b542-9703-aa04-f1c7-b10584e44391@gmail.com>
 <829308a3-3bf6-c173-65fa-e2a0f45f7f61@intel.com>
 <68886f99-97f5-897a-f754-6f414741bd5a@gmail.com>
 <22580b82-0257-b156-9f0c-79afa34067e5@gmail.com>
 <8876217f-ede6-fc81-2e05-b4fc976b3235@intel.com>
 <6a1267b0-6242-fc9f-60ed-02bf34677b62@intel.com>
 <20180301160418.GA2490@thunk.org>
 <AF3403B9-9791-4A77-A6FB-3281B8EA7A31@dilger.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bough Chen <haibo.chen@nxp.com>,
        Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@sandisk.com>,
        Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@intel.com>,
        Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@sandisk.com>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com>,
        Das Asutosh <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@gmail.com>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>,
        Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@codeaurora.org>,
        Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@nvidia.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF3403B9-9791-4A77-A6FB-3281B8EA7A31@dilger.ca>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org

On 01.03.2018 23:20, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>> This doesn't seem to make sense; the PC is where we are currently
>> executing, and LR is the "Link Register" where the flow of control
>> will be returning after the current function returns, right?  Well,
>> dx_probe should *not* be returning to __wait_on_bit().  So this just
>> seems.... weird.
>>
>> Ignoring the LR register, this stack trace looks sane...  I can't see
>> which pointer could be NULL and getting dereferenced, though.  How
>> easily can you reproduce the problem?  Can you either (a) translate
>> the PC into a line number, or better yet, if you can reproduce, add a
>> series of BUG_ON's so we can see what's going on?

Ted, thank you for the suggestion. I don't have a bug-reproducer, it happens
only under some IO load and quite randomly. I've applied the BUG_ON()'s, but it
may take some time to catch the bug again.

>> +	BUG_ON(frame);
> 
> I think you mean:
> 	BUG_ON(frame == NULL);
> or
> 	BUG_ON(!frame);
> 
> 
>> 	memset(frame_in, 0, EXT4_HTREE_LEVEL * sizeof(frame_in[0]));
>> 	frame->bh = ext4_read_dirblock(dir, 0, INDEX);
>> 	if (IS_ERR(frame->bh))
>> 		return (struct dx_frame *) frame->bh;
>>
>> +	BUG_ON(frame->bh);
>> +	BUG_ON(frame->bh->b_data);
> 
> Same here.
> 
> 	BUG_ON(frame->bh == NULL);
> 	BUG_ON(frame->bh->b_data == NULL);
> 
> This is why I don't like implicit "is NULL" or "is non-zero" usage.  Lustre
> used to require "== NULL" or "!= NULL" to avoid bugs like this, but had to
> abandon that because of upstream code style.

Well spotted, thanks Andreas.

>> 	root = (struct dx_root *) frame->bh->b_data;
>> 	if (root->info.hash_version != DX_HASH_TEA &&
>> 	    root->info.hash_version != DX_HASH_HALF_MD4 &&
>> 	    root->info.hash_version != DX_HASH_LEGACY) {
>>
>> These are "could never" happen scenarios from looking at the code, but
>> that will help explain what is going on.
>>
>> If this is reliably only happening with mq, the only way I could see
>> that if is something is returning an error when it previously wasn't.
>> This isn't a problem we're seeing with any of our testing, though.