Subject: Re: e56b43b971 ("reimplement path_mountpoint() with
less magic"):
kernel BUG at fs/namei.c:676!
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:14:09PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
>
>
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git fixes
>
> commit e56b43b971a7c08762fceab330a52b7245041dbc
> Author: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> AuthorDate: Fri Jan 10 17:17:19 2020 -0500
> Commit: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> CommitDate: Fri Jan 10 17:43:05 2020 -0500
>
> reimplement path_mountpoint() with less magic
*blink*
Which tree are you looking at? The one you've mentioned has a version
the
testing was conducted on "fixed" branch, which has below commits
commit d0cb50185ae942b03c4327be322055d622dc79f6
Author: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun Jan 26 09:29:34 2020 -0500
do_last(): fetch directory ->i_mode and ->i_uid before it's too late
commit 508c8772760d4ef9c1a044519b564710c3684fc5
Author: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue Jan 14 22:09:57 2020 -0500
fix autofs regression caused by follow_managed() changes
commit c64cd6e34ea340adbb2a0a2f99cc884b96dcdca5
Author: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri Jan 10 17:17:19 2020 -0500
reimplement path_mountpoint() with less magic
of that commit with fix folded in, and had it there for nearly two
weeks -
replacement is
thanks, this is a problem we will look into, why it reports out old
commit.
commit c64cd6e34ea340adbb2a0a2f99cc884b96dcdca5
Author: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
AuthorDate: Fri Jan 10 17:17:19 2020 -0500
Commit: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
CommitDate: Wed Jan 15 01:36:06 2020 -0500
reimplement path_mountpoint() with less magic
Moreover, that fixed commit has been pulled into mainline since then, so
Typically
if the head of mainline works without the same issue, we should not report it.
Kindly ignore this report. We will also check the bisection detail to understand
what can possibly be wrong here.
> whatever tree this has come from would be impossible to merge without
> a mainline conflict...
>
> Please, explain.