Re: bio linked list corruption.

[Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:10:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Seems to be the whole thing:
>
>Ahh. On lkml, so I do have it in my mailbox, but Dave changed the
>subject line when he tested on ext4 rather than btrfs..
>
>Anyway, the corrupted address is somewhat interesting. As Dave Jones
>said, he saw
>
>  list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffff806648),
>but was ffffc9000067fcd8. (prev=ffff880503878b80).
>  list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffffc05648),
>but was ffffc9000028bcd8. (prev=ffff880503a145c0).
>
>and Dave Chinner reports
>
>  list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffffc02808),
>but was ffffc90005f6bda8. (prev=ffff88013363bb80).
>
>and it's worth noting that the "but was" is a remarkably consistent
>vmalloc address (the ffffc9000.. pattern gives it away). In fact, it's
>identical across two boots for DaveJ in the low 14 bits, and fairly
>high up in those low 14 bots (0x3cd8).
>
>DaveC has a different address, but it's also in the vmalloc space, and
>also looks like it is fairly high up in 14 bits (0x3da8). So in both
>cases it's almost certainly a stack address with a fairly empty stack.
>The differences are presumably due to different kernel configurations
>and/or just different filesystems calling the same function that does
>the same bad thing but now at different depths in the stack.
>
>Adding Andy to the cc, because this *might* be triggered by the
>vmalloc stack code itself. Maybe the re-use of stacks showing some
>problem? Maybe Chris (who can't see the problem) doesn't have
>CONFIG_VMAP_STACK enabled?

CONFIG_VMAP_STACK=y, but maybe I just need to hammer on process creation 
more.  I'm testing in a hugely stripped down VM, so Dave might have more 
background stuff going on.

-chris