From: Akira Fujita Subject: Re: [BUG] ext4: i_size, EOFBLOCKS_FS corruption with xfstests 269 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:49:26 +0900 Message-ID: <5008E356.7070306@rs.jp.nec.com> References: <50066C93.1070006@rs.jp.nec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Theodore Tso , ext4 development To: =?UTF-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBDemVybmVy?= Return-path: Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:52037 "EHLO tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750858Ab2GTEtv (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:49:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Lukas, > thanks for reporting this. Could you please try to use the most > recent e2fsprogs ? The EOFBLOCKS_FL has been removed from e2fsprogs > with: > > 010dc7b90d97b93907cbf57b3b44f1c1cad234f6 e2fsck: remove > EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL flag handling Thanks for comment, yes, both e2fsck outputs I reported have gone with the latest e2fsprogs (37c8db7b2078d0310e5676404e21cc143d8e4d56). > and is about to be removed from kernel as well, so the EOFBLOCKS_FL > problem probably does not even matter. Though the i_size problem > might be real. The patch also fixes i_size problem. Because the last uninitialized extent (~~~ in below) whose offset exceeds i_size and is not checked with the latest e2fsck. # debugfs: stat <1237> Inode: 1237 Type: regular Mode: 0666 Flags: 0x80000 Generation: 2257700857 Version: 0x00000000:00000001 User: 1870 Group: 1899 Size: 440021 File ACL: 0 Directory ACL: 0 Links: 1 Blockcount: 256 Fragment: Address: 0 Number: 0 Size: 0 ctime: 0x5007a2a0:ee09d6a0 -- Thu Jul 19 15:01:04 2012 atime: 0x5007a2ae:7dbe4e64 -- Thu Jul 19 15:01:18 2012 mtime: 0x5007a2a0:ee09d6a0 -- Thu Jul 19 15:01:04 2012 crtime: 0x5007a283:31ed0abc -- Thu Jul 19 15:00:35 2012 Size of extra inode fields: 28 EXTENTS: (12-38):49820-49846, (106):13714, (107):41292, (108-110[u]):41293-= 41295 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= ~~~~~ Regards, Akira Fujita (2012/07/18 18:40), Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 Czerner wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Akira Fujita wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:58:11 +0900 >> From: Akira Fujita >> To: Theodore Tso >> Cc: ext4 development >> Subject: [BUG] ext4: i_size, EOFBLOCKS_FS corruption with xfstests 2= 69 >> >> Hi, >> >> I got a issue which makes i_size and EOFBLOCKS_FL corrupted >> on ext4 with xfstests 269. >> In my environment (linux-3.5-rc7), this can be reproduced >> once of 10 times trial. >> >> Kernel: 3.5-rc7 >> Arch: x86_64 >> >> Step and log are as bellow, after xfstests 269, e2fsck outputs >> i_size and EOFBLOCKS_FL corruption. >> Is this an already known issue? > > Hi Akira, > > thanks for reporting this. Could you please try to use the most > recent e2fsprogs ? The EOFBLOCKS_FL has been removed from e2fsprogs > with: > > 010dc7b90d97b93907cbf57b3b44f1c1cad234f6 e2fsck: remove > EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL flag handling > > and is about to be removed from kernel as well, so the EOFBLOCKS_FL > problem probably does not even matter. Though the i_size problem > might be real. > > Not sure if it is a known problem, but I've certainly seen it before > with xfstest 269, though I have not had time to look at this yet. So > I guess I should :). > > Thanks! > -Lukas > >> >> # ./check 269 >> FSTYP -- ext4 >> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 mcds1 3.5.0-rc7 >> MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb3 >> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr /dev/sdb3 /mnt/mp2 >> >> 269 97s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see 269.= out.bad) >> --- 269.out 2012-07-02 10:51:34.000000000 +0900 >> +++ 269.out.bad 2012-07-18 14:09:03.000000000 +0900 >> @@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ >> Run fsstress >> >> Run dd writers in parallel >> +_check_generic_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/sdb3 is inconsis= tent (see 269.full) >> Ran: 269 >> Failures: 269 >> Failed 1 of 1 tests >> >> >> # cat 269.full >> (snip) >> >> e2fsck 1.41.12 (17-May-2010) >> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes >> Inode 2336, i_size is 625045, should be 1277952. Fix? no >> >> Inode 3193 should not have EOFBLOCKS_FL set (size 1928717, lblk= 218) >> Clear? no >> >> Inode 4198 should not have EOFBLOCKS_FL set (size 380389, lblk = 73) >> Clear? no >> >> >> Regards, >> Akira Fujita >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4= " in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html