From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@austin.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: warning at fs/ext3/inode.c:1016/ext3_getblk()
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:57:12 -0500
Message-ID: <1157482632.19432.6.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com>
References: <20060905171049.GB27433@ele.uri.edu>
	 <1157479756.23501.18.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Will Simoneau <simoneau@ele.uri.edu>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1030221AbWIES5f@vger.kernel.org>
To: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1157479756.23501.18.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 11:09 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 13:10 -0400, Will Simoneau wrote:
> > Has anyone seen this before? These three traces occured at different times
> > today when three new user accounts (and associated quotas) were created. This
> > machine is an NFS server which uses quotas on an ext3 fs (dir_index is on).
> > Kernel is 2.6.17.11 on an x86 smp w/64G highmem; 4G ram is installed. The
> > affected filesystem is on a software raid1 of two hardware raid0 volumes from a
> > megaraid card.
> > 
> > BUG: warning at fs/ext3/inode.c:1016/ext3_getblk()
> >  <c01c5140> ext3_getblk+0x98/0x2a6  <c03b2806> md_wakeup_thread+0x26/0x2a
> >  <c01c536d> ext3_bread+0x1f/0x88  <c01cedf9> ext3_quota_read+0x136/0x1ae
> >  <c018b683> v1_read_dqblk+0x61/0xac  <c0188f32> dquot_acquire+0xf6/0x107
> >  <c01ceaba> ext3_acquire_dquot+0x46/0x68  <c01897d4> dqget+0x155/0x1e7
> >  <c018a97b> dquot_transfer+0x3e0/0x3e9  <c016fe52> dput+0x23/0x13e
> >  <c01c7986> ext3_setattr+0xc3/0x240  <c0120f66> current_fs_time+0x52/0x6a
> >  <c017320e> notify_change+0x2bd/0x30d  <c0159246> chown_common+0x9c/0xc5
> >  <c02a222c> strncpy_from_user+0x3b/0x68  <c0167fe6> do_path_lookup+0xdf/0x266
> >  <c016841b> __user_walk_fd+0x44/0x5a  <c01592b9> sys_chown+0x4a/0x55
> >  <c015a43c> vfs_write+0xe7/0x13c  <c01695d4> sys_mkdir+0x1f/0x23
> >  <c0102a97> syscall_call+0x7/0xb 
> 
> I think its a bogus warning. 
> 
> ext3_getblk() is calling ext3_get_blocks_handle() to map "1" block for
> read. But for *some* reason ext3_get_blocks_handle() more than 1 block.
> ext3_get_blocks_handle() return "positive #of blocks" is a valid case.
> So needs to be fixed.

I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what ext3_get_blocks_handle
is trying to return, but it looks to me like if it is allocating one
data block, and needs to allocate an indirect block as well, then it
will return 2 rather than 1.  Is this expected, or am I just confused?

> I did search for callers of ext3_get_blocks_handle() and found that
> ext3_readdir() seems to do wrong thing all the time with error check :(
> Need to take a closer look..
> 
> 	err = ext3_get_blocks_handle(NULL, inode, blk, 1,
>                                                 &map_bh, 0, 0);
>         if (err > 0) {  <<<< BAD
>                   page_cache_readahead(sb->s_bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping,
>                                 &filp->f_ra,
>                                 filp,
>                                 map_bh.b_blocknr >>
>                                 (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - inode->i_blkbits),
>                                 1);
>                         bh = ext3_bread(NULL, inode, blk, 0, &err);
>        }

Bad to do this what it's doing, or bad to call name the variable "err"?
I think if it looked like this:

	count = ext3_get_blocks_handle(NULL, inode, blk, 1,
                                                &map_bh, 0, 0);
        if (count > 0) { 

it would be a lot less confusing.
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center