[arch-general] [linux] ext4 data corruption bug
Hello everybody, a thread has been started on lkml discussing a serious ext4 data corruption bug in latest stable kernels. [0] Looks like the root cause is not really clear so far. Reverting the commit in question should fix the problem though. [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/23/690 -- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Chris get my mail address: */=0;b=c[a++];) putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig */b/42*2-3)*42);}
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:00:01PM +0200, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
a thread has been started on lkml discussing a serious ext4 data corruption bug in latest stable kernels. [0]
Looks like the root cause is not really clear so far. Reverting the commit in question should fix the problem though.
[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/23/690 -- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Chris get my mail address: */=0;b=c[a++];) putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig */b/42*2-3)*42);}
Why would you suggest a revert and that "the root cause is not really clear" when tytso has already proposed a fix along with a detailed explanation of why the bug occurs? d
Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> on Wed, 2012/10/24 08:23:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:00:01PM +0200, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
a thread has been started on lkml discussing a serious ext4 data corruption bug in latest stable kernels. [0]
Looks like the root cause is not really clear so far. Reverting the commit in question should fix the problem though.
Why would you suggest a revert and that "the root cause is not really clear" when tytso has already proposed a fix along with a detailed explanation of why the bug occurs?
Tytso writes about Eric reviewing his patch:
Until then, it should also be fine to just revert that commit on the other stable kernels.
Though later in the thread Tytso writes:
P.S. This is a list of all of the commits between v3.6.1 and v3.6.2 (there were no ext4-related changes between v3.6.2 and v3.6.3), and a quick analysis of the patch. The last commit, 14b4ed2, is the only one that I could see as potentially being problematic, which is why I've been pushing so hard on this one even though my original analysis doesn't seem to be correct, and Eric and I can't see how the change in 14b4ed2 could be causing the fs corruption.
So it looks like nobody really knows what to do best... -- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Chris get my mail address: */=0;b=c[a++];) putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c && ./sig */b/42*2-3)*42);}
participants (2)
-
Christian Hesse
-
Dave Reisner