* Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-01 02:17:14 -0600]: > On 2011-09-01, at 12:34 AM, Chen Huan wrote: > > During a recent read-only checking of an corrupted ext3 file system, > > I found a strange behaviour of e2fsck: when an inode has an invalid > > indirect block number, e2fsck aborts with the following message: > > > > e2fsck 1.39 (29-May-2006) > > Please retest with a new version of e2fsprogs. The current release > version is 1.41.14, and the work-in-progress for version 1.42 is > available via Git. The problem remains in e2fsck 1.42-WIP (02-Jul-2011) > > > Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes > > Inode 12 has illegal block(s). Clear? no > > > > Illegal block #-1 (4294967295) in inode 12. IGNORED. > > Error while iterating over blocks in inode 12: Illegal indirect block found > > e2fsck: aborted > > > > You can reproduce it with this code snippet: > > > > #!/bin/sh > > > > dev=/dev/sde > > mnt=/mnt > > > > mkfs.ext3 -F $dev > > mount $dev $mnt > > dd if=/dev/zero of=$mnt/file bs=1M count=1 > > umount $dev > > debugfs -w -R 'sif file block[IND] 0xFFFFFFFF' $dev > > e2fsck -f -n $dev > > > > Doing a fixing without -n option can safely delete this bad blocknum. > > > > My question is: Is this behaviour a bug or intended? > > -- > > 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 > > > Cheers, Andreas > > > > > -- 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
