From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: ext4_block_to_path block > max warning. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:21:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20130319142105.GA1465@redhat.com> References: <20130319033555.GA1582@redhat.com> <20130319122244.GA32310@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Linux Kernel , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130319122244.GA32310@thunk.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:22:44AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:35:55PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > Not sure what I did to trigger this, but it's happened a few times while fuzzing syscalls. > > Rebooted and fscked, didn't find anything wrong. > > > > [ 5084.436288] EXT4-fs warning (device sda1): ext4_block_to_path:105: block 1874853625 > max in inode 34 > > [ 5167.723925] EXT4-fs warning (device sda1): ext4_block_to_path:105: block 2507988634 > max in inode 34 > > Yes, this wouldn't be a problem that would be be reflected in an fsck > problem. What warning indicates is that there was an attempt to write > to file offset which is larger than what is supported by using > indirect blocks. (Presumably this was probably a ext3 file system > mounted using ext4?) Yeah, think so. That was my /boot partition it wandered into. Dave