Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.rc > #367624 > unrolled thread

Bug#1076372: Re.: linux-image-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64: ext4 file corruption with newer kernels

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.rc

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1076372: Re.: linux-image-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64: ext4 file corruption with newer kernels Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2024-07-24 18:10 +0200
    Bug#1076372: Re.: linux-image-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64: ext4 file corruption with newer kernels Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-07-26 23:20 +0200
      Bug#1076372: Re.: linux-image-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64: ext4 file corruption with newer kernels Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-08-13 20:20 +0200

#367624 — Bug#1076372: Re.: linux-image-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64: ext4 file corruption with newer kernels

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Control: found -1 6.9.7-1~bpo12+1

On Wednesday, 24 July 2024 17:24:44 CEST Stefan wrote:
> I ran a few other tests:
> 
> 1. tried package "linux-image-6.1.0-22-amd64": works
> 2. tried package "linux-image-6.9.7+bpo-amd64": does not work

Via https://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux-signed-amd64/ you can find
older (bpo) kernels then 6.5.10+1~bpo12+1 (where it was initially filed 
against) and it's useful to know what the last kernel version after 6.1
was where it worked properly and the first one where it broke.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#367961

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

Hi Stefan,

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:49:00AM +0200, Stefan wrote:
> The complete sentence is:
> 
> oldest non-working kernel is 6.3.7 (package linux-image-6.3.0-1-amd64),
> 6.3.5 (latest version of package package linux-image-6.3.0-0-amd64) works.

Now that you were able to pinpoint two versions which are very close
together, would you be able to bisect the changes between 6.3.5 and
6.3.7 to find the breaking commit upstream in that 6.3.y series?

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369657

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

Hi Stefan,

On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 02:27:15AM +0200, Stefan wrote:
> Hi Salvatore,
> 
> Am 26.07.24 um 23:09 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> > Now that you were able to pinpoint two versions which are very close
> > together, would you be able to bisect the changes between 6.3.5 and
> > 6.3.7 to find the breaking commit upstream in that 6.3.y series?
> 
> not without spending more time I can effort ATM and without finding a
> better test procedure (currently 1-2h per run).
> 
> I'm not convinced that it is an ext4 bug. The corruption may also occur
> when the data is written to the nvm. The hardware (chipset-less AM5
> mainboard) is quite new, the only vendor (Asrock) probably does not care
> about Linux and maybe AMD did not tested is carefully enough. Thus,
> there a quite a lot of changes from 6.3.5 -> 6.3.7 that could cause the bug.
> 
> I'll try to find out more next week (other ways to reproduce the error,
> other hardware, ...), especially whether it is a  more general issue or
> hardware specific.

Were you able to get some more information or find other ways to
reproduce the error?

Is there actually a testcase other can run, or is this something
proprietary?

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.rc

csiph-web