On 10/13/2017 02:10 AM, Alexandr Kuznetsov wrote: [snip] > I was not manipulating directly with backing devices or lvm pv's. I was > not doing something illegal from lvm or bcache points of view, otherwise > i would not write here, because then i would know that file system was > killed by myself. > There was only lvcreate and lvremove commands that creates and removes > logical volumes inside lvm, nothing more, there wasn't any direct access > outside of /dev/bcache* devices. Thats why i wrote "This means that some > necessary io buffer range checks are missing inside bcache". So how > bcache allowed to damage data outside of bcache* devices if any access > to them went through bcache, not directly? I'm sure thats a bug. Why > bcache freezes when he meets corrupted data instead of reporting errors? > I'm sure thats a bug. I'm sorry you've lost data. I've run bcache and lvm a lot at scale and haven't seen anything like this, nor are there any other reports as far as I'm aware. I am new as bcache maintainer but have a pretty high degree of confidence it doesn't overwrite its own superblocks randomly. If you come up with a repro I'll be glad to look at it. Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
