|Summary:||kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:72! when running rsync test suite on reiserfs|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Matt McCutchen <matt>|
|Component:||kernel||Assignee:||Eric Sandeen <esandeen>|
|Status:||CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2009-06-10 01:59:57 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Matt McCutchen 2008-07-02 04:06:07 UTC
Description of problem: The kernel encounters a "BUG" when I run the rsync 3.0.3 test suite ("make test") on a reiserfs filesystem. The filesystem is on an LVM logical volume whose physical volume is LUKS-encrypted. The fstab line looks like: /dev/mapper/vg-root / reiserfs rw,noatime,acl 0 1 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): kernel-184.108.40.206-55.fc9.i686 How reproducible: Every time for me. Steps to Reproduce: git clone git://git.samba.org/rsync.git cd rsync && ./configure && make test Actual results: The kernel hits a BUG (I will attach the stack trace) and the test suite freezes. Expected results: The test suite completes. Additional info:
Comment 2 Matt McCutchen 2008-07-02 17:04:12 UTC
The same problem occurs with kernel-2.6.26-0.104.rc8.git2.fc10.i686, but the computer freezes too soon for me to obtain dmesg output.
Comment 3 Eric Sandeen 2008-07-03 20:57:25 UTC
You may have better luck reporting this on the kernel.org bugzilla, or on the reiser or kernel mailing lists. It's unlikely that it is unique to fedora (which would also be worth a test, though) Thanks, -Eric
Comment 4 Matt McCutchen 2008-07-04 02:31:50 UTC
OK, I will investigate some more and report this "upstream". kernel-220.127.116.11-92.fc8.i686 does not seem to have the problem: I ran the rsync testsuite 120 times without incident. I will use that kernel until the problem is resolved.
Comment 5 Eric Sandeen 2008-07-04 02:36:39 UTC
I suspect that that released kernel simply did not have the list debugging in place; check CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST in /boot/config* -Eric
Comment 6 Matt McCutchen 2008-07-04 03:47:13 UTC
That setting is enabled: $ grep CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST /boot/config-18.104.22.168-92.fc8 CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST=y
Comment 7 Eric Sandeen 2008-07-04 04:04:54 UTC
Hm, interesting. I don't see anything offhand in the reiserfs git logs that looks related. If you're highly motivated, since you have a testcase you can trigger it with, you could try a git bisect between 2.6.24 and 2.6.25, using the fedora kernel configs. If you started with restricting the bisect to changes in fs/reiserfs it would probably go very quickly (if the problem is indeed a change under fs/reiserfs, but that seems fairly likely from a quick look at the oops)
Comment 8 Matt McCutchen 2008-07-06 01:38:34 UTC
Bisection points to 3227e14c3cab5ef7972c72eb13c13de444b5bfbc as the faulty commit. I will test whether reverting that commit in the current vanilla kernel fixes the problem and then report to the reiserfs-devel list.
Comment 9 Eric Sandeen 2008-07-06 01:41:58 UTC
cool, nice job finding it. sorry for making you do all the work ;)
Comment 10 Eric Sandeen 2008-07-06 03:38:19 UTC
I'm going to close this as an UPSTREAM problem but if you get a resolution from the reiserfs folks, please ping me via this bug and I'll be happy to put it into a fedora kernel update. Thanks! -Eric
Comment 11 Matt McCutchen 2008-07-08 19:24:12 UTC
Cases like this make me think "UPSTREAM" should be a status rather than a resolution. I finally put together the upstream report: http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&m=121554473726081&w=2 I will comment again if a resolution is reached.
Comment 12 Eric Sandeen 2008-07-08 19:31:41 UTC
re, upstream as status, yup, maybe so. I'm not terribly happy to close as UPSTREAM but the reality is that for some things, taking the bug to upstream will probably be the faster path to resolution. And when there's a willing/savvy bug reporter who can do so ... :) -Eric
Comment 13 Matt McCutchen 2008-07-08 21:00:24 UTC
Jeff Mahoney has a patch that fixes the bug for me: http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&m=121554230221773&w=2
Comment 14 Eric Sandeen 2008-07-08 21:49:57 UTC
Committed to rawhide & F-9 kernels, thanks! -Eric
Comment 15 Matt McCutchen 2008-07-09 13:45:53 UTC
The patch is now in the vanilla kernel as commit eb35c218.
Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2008-07-21 13:56:55 UTC
kernel-22.214.171.124-97.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2008-07-23 07:17:22 UTC
kernel-126.96.36.199-97.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update kernel'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-6634
Comment 18 Matt McCutchen 2009-01-09 02:57:50 UTC
AFAIK, this has been fixed for a long time. Is there any further QA to be done, or shall I close the bug?
Comment 19 Bug Zapper 2009-06-10 01:52:45 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Comment 20 Eric Sandeen 2009-06-10 01:59:57 UTC
Auto-bug-closers missed this one after updates pushed, I guess.