Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Oct 2023 21:09:35 +0800 | Subject | Re: autofs: add autofs_parse_fd() | From | Ian Kent <> |
| |
On 20/10/23 19:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, at 12:45, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:55:57AM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 08:37, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, at 17:27, Naresh Kamboju wrote: >>>>> The qemu-x86_64 and x86_64 booting with 64bit kernel and 32bit rootfs we call >>>>> it as compat mode boot testing. Recently it started to failed to get login >>>>> prompt. >>>>> >>>>> We have not seen any kernel crash logs. >>>>> >>>>> Anders, bisection is pointing to first bad commit, >>>>> 546694b8f658 autofs: add autofs_parse_fd() >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org> >>>>> Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org> >>>> I tried to find something in that commit that would be different >>>> in compat mode, but don't see anything at all -- this appears >>>> to be just a simple refactoring of the code, unlike the commits >>>> that immediately follow it and that do change the mount >>>> interface. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately this makes it impossible to just revert the commit >>>> on top of linux-next. Can you double-check your bisection by >>>> testing 546694b8f658 and the commit before it again? >>> I tried these two patches again: >>> 546694b8f658 ("autofs: add autofs_parse_fd()") - doesn't boot >>> bc69fdde0ae1 ("autofs: refactor autofs_prepare_pipe()") - boots >>> >> One difference that I notice between those two patches is that we no >> long call autofs_prepare_pipe(). We just call autofs_check_pipe(). > Indeed, so some of the f_flags end up being different. I assumed > this was done intentionally, but it might be worth checking if > the patch below makes any difference when the flags get put > back the way they were. This is probably not the correct fix, but > may help figure out what is going on. It should apply to anything > from 546694b8f658 ("autofs: add autofs_parse_fd()") to the current > linux-next: > > --- a/fs/autofs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/autofs/inode.c > @@ -358,6 +358,11 @@ static int autofs_fill_super(struct super_block *s, struct fs_context *fc) > pr_debug("pipe fd = %d, pgrp = %u\n", > sbi->pipefd, pid_nr(sbi->oz_pgrp)); > > + /* We want a packet pipe */ > + sbi->pipe->f_flags |= O_DIRECT; > + /* We don't expect -EAGAIN */ > + sbi->pipe->f_flags &= ~O_NONBLOCK; > +
That makes sense, we do want a packet pipe and that does also mean
we don't want a non-blocking pipe, it will be interesting to see
if that makes a difference. It's been a long time since Linus
implemented that packet pipe and I can't remember now what the
case was that lead to it.
Ian
> sbi->flags &= ~AUTOFS_SBI_CATATONIC; > > /*
| |