Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Christian, is there anything in dmesg along with it this time?
>
> Yes, as soon as the input/output errors occur, I get:
>
> [34989.160273] EXT4-fs error (device md0): ext4_ext_check_inode: bad header/extent in inode #12042: invalid magic - magic 800, entries 8192, max 5696(0), depth 6144(6144)
> [34989.162491] EXT4-fs error (device md0): ext4_ext_check_inode: bad header/extent in inode #12207: invalid magic - magic 42fc, entries 17104, max 62268(0), depth 1283(1283)
> [34989.166784] EXT4-fs error (device md0): ext4_ext_check_inode: bad header/extent in inode #12249: invalid magic - magic 42fc, entries 17104, max 62268(0), depth 1283(1283)
Oh, duh, of course. Now that I'm thinking about it right ...
So these are funny inodes:
# file mnt/lost+found/*
mnt/lost+found/#12042: setuid setgid character special
mnt/lost+found/#12207: setgid socket
mnt/lost+found/#12249: setgid socket
by virtue of the corruption.
They don't actually have any blocks,
debugfs: stat <12042>
Inode: 12042 Type: character special Mode: 0012 Flags: 0xe0406
Generation: 1123828476 Version: 0x21204098
User: -62782456 Group: -62766025 Size: 0
File ACL: 0 Directory ACL: 0
Links: 1 Blockcount: 0
Fragment: Address: 0 Number: 0 Size: 0
ctime: 0x00063400 -- Mon Jan 5 10:55:28 1970
atime: 0x01380030 -- Tue Aug 25 10:48:00 1970
mtime: 0x00103001 -- Tue Jan 13 00:41:05 1970
Size of extra inode fields: 4
Device major/minor number: 08:00 (hex 08:00)
so we shouldn't be checking the extent header, I think.
if (ei->i_flags & EXT4_EXTENTS_FL) {
/* Validate extent which is part of inode */
ret = ext4_ext_check_inode(inode);
} else if ...
Or maybe fsck should be clearing the extents flag on inodes like this?
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
