lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [lkp] [Btrfs] e5a7b11a5c: shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 09:51:20AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed the following commit:
>
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Omar-Sandoval/Btrfs-fix-extent-buffer-bitmap-tests-on-big-endian-systems/20160713-074511
> commit e5a7b11a5caa8d42fe3fb4ff2d75b6811aeb8eb7 ("Btrfs: fix extent buffer bitmap tests on big-endian systems")
>
> in testcase: boot
>
> on test machine: 2 threads qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu Haswell,+smep,+smap with 1G memory
>
> caused below changes:
>
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+------------+
> | | v4.7-rc7 | e5a7b11a5c |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+------------+
> | boot_successes | 0 | 0 |
> | boot_failures | 80 | 8 |
> | invoked_oom-killer:gfp_mask=0x | 59 | 2 |
> | Mem-Info | 59 | 2 |
> | Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Out_of_memory_and_no_killable_processes | 59 | 2 |
> | backtrace:btrfs_test_extent_io | 35 | 6 |
> | backtrace:init_btrfs_fs | 35 | 6 |
> | backtrace:kernel_init_freeable | 59 | 8 |
> | BUG:kernel_test_oversize | 11 | 4 |
> | backtrace:vfs_write | 24 | 2 |
> | backtrace:SyS_write | 24 | 2 |
> | backtrace:populate_rootfs | 24 | 2 |
> | kernel_BUG_at_mm/filemap.c | 1 | |
> | invalid_opcode:#[##]PREEMPT_SMP | 1 | |
> | RIP:unlock_page | 1 | |
> | Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception | 1 | |
> | backtrace:kswapd | 1 | |
> | BUG:kernel_boot_hang | 9 | |
> | BUG:kernel_torture_test_oversize | 0 | 2 |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+------------+
>
>
>
> [ 74.703186] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/btrfs/tests/extent-io-tests.c:367:4
> [ 74.703359] shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
> [ 74.703359] CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.7.0-rc7-00001-ge5a7b11 #1
> [ 74.703359] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Debian-1.8.2-1 04/01/2014
> [ 74.703359] 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000097 0000000000000001 0000000000000001
> [ 74.703359] 0000000000000000 0000000000000001 ffff880035143c48 ffffffff82046359
> [ 74.703359] ffffffff813e786b 000000007a4be528 000000007a4be500 0000000000000020
> [ 74.703359] Call Trace:
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff82046359>] dump_stack+0x290/0x3f0
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff813e786b>] ? printk+0x5d/0x65
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff8212cbd9>] ubsan_epilogue+0x12/0x3f
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff8212d61b>] __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x19c/0x1d1
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff81ca5a42>] ? extent_buffer_bitmap_set+0x508/0x517
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff81e142e6>] __test_eb_bitmaps+0x5f1/0x7a7
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff81e142e6>] ? __test_eb_bitmaps+0x5f1/0x7a7
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff81e16479>] btrfs_test_extent_io+0x281/0x427
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff81d2b075>] ? cleanup_write_cache_enospc+0x88/0x88
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff8606d299>] init_btrfs_fs+0x926/0xd88
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff8606c973>] ? trace_event_define_fields_btrfs_space_reservation+0x32f/0x32f
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff81000884>] do_one_initcall+0x240/0x4ed
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff85fd107c>] kernel_init_freeable+0x3b7/0x628
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff83033b7f>] kernel_init+0x1c/0x49c
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff830600cf>] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x40
> [ 74.703359] [<ffffffff83033b63>] ? rest_init+0x2aa/0x2aa
> [ 74.703359] ================================================================================
> [ 75.122581] BTRFS: selftest: Extent I/O tests finished
> [ 75.123550] BTRFS: selftest: Running btrfs_get_extent tests

Hm, that doesn't make much sense:

365 for (i = 0; i < len * BITS_PER_BYTE / 32; i++) {
366 x = (0x19660dULL * (u64)x + 0x3c6ef35fULL) & 0xffffffffU;
367 for (j = 0; j < 32; j++) {
368 if (x & (1U << j)) {
369 bitmap_set(bitmap, i * 32 + j, 1);
370 extent_buffer_bitmap_set(eb, 0, i * 32 + j, 1);
371 }
372 }
373 }

How are we shifting by 32? I'll try to reproduce this tomorrow, but I
wonder if it's a compiler/UBSAN bug.

--
Omar

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-15 05:21    [W:0.034 / U:3.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site