[pull] master from torvalds:master #314
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![pull[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12910?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
pull bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2024
When we online resize an ext4 filesystem with a oversized flexbg_size,
mkfs.ext4 -F -G 67108864 $dev -b 4096 100M
mount $dev $dir
resize2fs $dev 16G
the following WARN_ON is triggered:
==================================================================
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 427 at mm/page_alloc.c:4402 __alloc_pages+0x411/0x550
Modules linked in: sg(E)
CPU: 0 PID: 427 Comm: resize2fs Tainted: G E 6.6.0-rc5+ #314
RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages+0x411/0x550
Call Trace:
<TASK>
__kmalloc_large_node+0xa2/0x200
__kmalloc+0x16e/0x290
ext4_resize_fs+0x481/0xd80
__ext4_ioctl+0x1616/0x1d90
ext4_ioctl+0x12/0x20
__x64_sys_ioctl+0xf0/0x150
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
==================================================================
This is because flexbg_size is too large and the size of the new_group_data
array to be allocated exceeds MAX_ORDER. Currently, the minimum value of
MAX_ORDER is 8, the minimum value of PAGE_SIZE is 4096, the corresponding
maximum number of groups that can be allocated is:
(PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER) / sizeof(struct ext4_new_group_data) ≈ 21845
And the value that is down-aligned to the power of 2 is 16384. Therefore,
this value is defined as MAX_RESIZE_BG, and the number of groups added
each time does not exceed this value during resizing, and is added multiple
times to complete the online resizing. The difference is that the metadata
in a flex_bg may be more dispersed.
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231023013057.2117948-4-libaokun1@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
pull bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 30, 2024
In case when is64 == 1 in emit(A64_REV32(is64, dst, dst), ctx) the generated insn reverses byte order for both high and low 32-bit words, resuling in an incorrect swap as indicated by the jit test: [ 9757.262607] test_bpf: #312 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.264435] test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 ret 1460850314 != -271733879 (0x5712ce8a != 0xefcdab89)FAIL (1 times) [ 9757.266260] test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.268000] test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.269686] test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.271380] test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 ret -1460850316 != 271733878 (0xa8ed3174 != 0x10325476)FAIL (1 times) [ 9757.273022] test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe jited:1 7 PASS [ 9757.274721] test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 9 PASS Fix this by forcing 32bit variant of rev32. Fixes: 1104247 ("bpf, arm64: Support unconditional bswap") Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> Tested-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> Acked-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> Acked-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com> Message-ID: <20240321081809.158803-1-asavkov@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
pull bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2024
Recent additions in BPF like cpu v4 instructions, test_bpf module exhibits the following failures: test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #83 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #84 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #85 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #86 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_W jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #165 ALU_SDIV_X: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #166 ALU_SDIV_K: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #169 ALU_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #170 ALU_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #172 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 301 PASS test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 555 PASS test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 268 PASS test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 269 PASS test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 460 PASS test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 320 PASS test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 222 PASS test_bpf: #320 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 273 PASS test_bpf: #344 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_B eBPF filter opcode 0091 (@5) unsupported jited:0 432 PASS test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_H eBPF filter opcode 0089 (@5) unsupported jited:0 381 PASS test_bpf: #346 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W eBPF filter opcode 0081 (@5) unsupported jited:0 505 PASS test_bpf: #490 JMP32_JA: Unconditional jump: if (true) return 1 eBPF filter opcode 0006 (@1) unsupported jited:0 261 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1040 PASSED, 10 FAILED, [924/1038 JIT'ed] Fix them by adding missing processing. Fixes: daabb2b ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions") Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Link: https://msgid.link/91de862dda99d170697eb79ffb478678af7e0b27.1709652689.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See Commits and Changes for more details.
Created by
pull[bot]
Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )