Hi Lukas,
thanks for reporting this. Could you please try to use the most
recent e2fsprogs ? The EOFBLOCKS_FL has been removed from e2fsprogs
with:
010dc7b90d97b93907cbf57b3b44f1c1cad234f6 e2fsck: remove
EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL flag handling
Thanks for comment, yes,
both e2fsck outputs I reported have gone with the latest e2fsprogs
(37c8db7b2078d0310e5676404e21cc143d8e4d56).
and is about to be removed from kernel as well, so the EOFBLOCKS_FL
problem probably does not even matter. Though the i_size problem
might be real.
The patch also fixes i_size problem.
Because the last uninitialized extent (~~~ in below)
whose offset exceeds i_size and is not checked with the latest e2fsck.
# debugfs: stat <1237>
Inode: 1237 Type: regular Mode: 0666 Flags: 0x80000
Generation: 2257700857 Version: 0x00000000:00000001
User: 1870 Group: 1899 Size: 440021
File ACL: 0 Directory ACL: 0
Links: 1 Blockcount: 256
Fragment: Address: 0 Number: 0 Size: 0
ctime: 0x5007a2a0:ee09d6a0 -- Thu Jul 19 15:01:04 2012
atime: 0x5007a2ae:7dbe4e64 -- Thu Jul 19 15:01:18 2012
mtime: 0x5007a2a0:ee09d6a0 -- Thu Jul 19 15:01:04 2012
crtime: 0x5007a283:31ed0abc -- Thu Jul 19 15:00:35 2012
Size of extra inode fields: 28
EXTENTS:
(12-38):49820-49846, (106):13714, (107):41292, (108-110[u]):41293-41295
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards,
Akira Fujita
(2012/07/18 18:40), Lukáš Czerner wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Akira Fujita wrote:
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:58:11 +0900
From: Akira Fujita <a-fujita@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [BUG] ext4: i_size, EOFBLOCKS_FS corruption with xfstests 269
Hi,
I got a issue which makes i_size and EOFBLOCKS_FL corrupted
on ext4 with xfstests 269.
In my environment (linux-3.5-rc7), this can be reproduced
once of 10 times trial.
Kernel: 3.5-rc7
Arch: x86_64
Step and log are as bellow, after xfstests 269, e2fsck outputs
i_size and EOFBLOCKS_FL corruption.
Is this an already known issue?
Hi Akira,
thanks for reporting this. Could you please try to use the most
recent e2fsprogs ? The EOFBLOCKS_FL has been removed from e2fsprogs
with:
010dc7b90d97b93907cbf57b3b44f1c1cad234f6 e2fsck: remove
EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL flag handling
and is about to be removed from kernel as well, so the EOFBLOCKS_FL
problem probably does not even matter. Though the i_size problem
might be real.
Not sure if it is a known problem, but I've certainly seen it before
with xfstest 269, though I have not had time to look at this yet. So
I guess I should :).
Thanks!
-Lukas
# ./check 269
FSTYP -- ext4
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 mcds1 3.5.0-rc7
MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb3
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr /dev/sdb3 /mnt/mp2
269 97s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see 269.out.bad)
--- 269.out 2012-07-02 10:51:34.000000000 +0900
+++ 269.out.bad 2012-07-18 14:09:03.000000000 +0900
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@
Run fsstress
Run dd writers in parallel
+_check_generic_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/sdb3 is inconsistent (see 269.full)
Ran: 269
Failures: 269
Failed 1 of 1 tests
# cat 269.full
(snip)
e2fsck 1.41.12 (17-May-2010)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Inode 2336, i_size is 625045, should be 1277952. Fix? no
Inode 3193 should not have EOFBLOCKS_FL set (size 1928717, lblk 218)
Clear? no
Inode 4198 should not have EOFBLOCKS_FL set (size 380389, lblk 73)
Clear? no
Regards,
Akira Fujita
--
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
--
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
