From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: more resize breakage
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 00:29:35 -0500
Message-ID: <5386C5BF.7080202@redhat.com>
References: <5386C41D.2090006@redhat.com> <20140529052733.GD17413@birch.djwong.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Return-path: <linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10492 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933668AbaE2F3e (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 May 2014 01:29:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20140529052733.GD17413@birch.djwong.org>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org>

On 5/29/14, 12:27 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:22:37AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> After considering how many resize2fs corruptions we've had, I decided to try to write a resize fuzzer which picks random parameters and sizes, and sees what happens with online & offline grow & offline shrink.  When I get it cleaner, I'll send it out to play with.
>>
>> But it is indeed finding resize issues; for example, with e2fsprogs git master & v3.15-rc3,

<snip>

>> Sad face.  :(
> 
> D'oh!
> 
> /me wonders, is offline grow any better?

Yes, offline passed.

> Also I "extended" fsfuzz to corrupt only metadata blocks and made the
> kernel+e2fsck chew through all that crap.  The kernel survived, but e2fsck
> seemed to die either failing to allocate blocks to resurrect the journal (bad
> bbitmap) or because of that thing where calling block_iterate on an inline data
> file makes e2fsck abort.
> 
> So, uh, ... long live the patchbomb? :(

yeah.  Maybe I (you?) should try my testcase w/ your latest patchbomb.  ;)

-Eric