[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: WARNING: bad unlock balance in xfs_iunlock
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Eric Sandeen <> wrote:
> On 4/30/18 9:02 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Eric Sandeen <> wrote:
> ...
>>>> It just extracted kernel source file name that looked relevant
>>>> to this crash and run on it.
>>>> Also the image can contain dynamically generated data, which makes it
>>>> impossible to have as a file at all.
>>> I guess I'm not sure what this means, can you explain?
>> Say, a value that we generally pass to close system call is not static
>> and can't be dumped to a static file. It's whatever a previous open
>> system call has returned. Inside of the program we memorize the return
>> value of open in a variable and then pass it to close. This generally
>> stands for all system calls. Say, an image can contain an uid, and
>> that uid can be obtained from a system call too.
> Ok, but that's the syscall side. You are operating on a static xfs image,
> correct? We're only asking for the actual filesystem you're operating
> against.
> (When I say "image" I am talking only about the filesystem itself, not any
> other syzkaller state)
> ...
>>> That was not at all clear to me. I thought when syzkaller was telling us
>>> "on upstream commit XYZ," it meant that it had identified commit XYZ as bad.
>>> I'm not sure if anyone else made that mistake, but perhaps you could also clarify
>>> the bug report text in this regard?
>> Suggestions are welcome. Currently it says "syzbot hit the following
>> crash on upstream commit SHA1", which was supposed to mean just the
>> state of the source tree when the crash happened. But I am not a
>> native speaker, so perhaps I am saying not what I intend to say.
>> There are also suggestions on report format improvement from +Ted
>> currently in works:
>> Not sure if they make this distinction 100% clear, though.
> Maybe I was the only one who misunderstood, but something like
> git tree: git://
> HEAD: f5c754d63d06 mm/swap_state.c: make bool enable_vma_readahead and swap_vma_readahead()
> to make it clear that it has not identified that commit as the culprit, it's
> just the head of the tree you were testing? (I think I have the correct git
> nomenclature ...)

This is done now, you can see example of new format here:

It says "HEAD commit" and also "syzbot engineers can be reached at <email>".

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-08 09:55    [W:0.111 / U:1.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site