On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:32:36AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 01:33:09AM -0300, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 02:49:26PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:55:54AM -0300, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:36:42PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:58:19AM -0300, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote: > > > > > > Creating, renaming or deleting a file may cause catalog corruption and > > > > > > data loss. This bug is randomly triggered by xfstests generic/027, but > > > > > > here is a faster reproducer: > > > > > > > > > > > > truncate -s 50M fs.iso > > > > > > mkfs.hfsplus fs.iso > > > > > > mount fs.iso /mnt > > > > > > i=100 > > > > > > while [ $i -le 150 ]; do > > > > > > touch /mnt/$i &>/dev/null > > > > > > ((++i)) > > > > > > done > > > > > > i=100 > > > > > > while [ $i -le 150 ]; do > > > > > > mv /mnt/$i /mnt/$(perl -e "print $i x82") &>/dev/null > > > > > > ((++i)) > > > > > > done > > > > > > umount /mnt > > > > > > fsck.hfsplus -n fs.iso > > > > > > > > > > It would be good to wire up this short reproducer as well for xfstests. > > > > > > > > Yes, that's my intention. The problem is that mkfs.hfsplus does not allow > > > > setting the size of the filesystem for scratch_mkfs_sized(); you need a > > > > workaround with the device mapper. I think I should submit that patch first > > > > and see if there is a problem with it. > > > > > > You don't need to do that. We use loop devices like this w/ mkfs_dev > > > quite a lot in fstests. For example, generic/361 has pretty much the > > > exact code pattern you need.... > > > > I see what you mean in this case, but I really want to run every test that > > uses _scratch_mkfs_sized(); generic/027 in particular, since it's the one > > that found these bugs for me. > > Trying to hack around SCRATCH_DEV to be some other device set up by > _scratch_mkfs_sized is likely to break things in unexpected ways. > Lots of library routines directly access SCRATCH_DEV or manipulate > it in interesting ways (e.g. build their own dm constructs on it). > I wasn't changing SCRATCH_DEV, the device mapper was only used briefly on _scratch_mkfs_sized, and then again on _check_scratch_fs. Still your point stands, Eryu already found problems with my patch. > IMO the right thing to do is implement the size parameter in > mkfs.hfsplus. I note that it has a dry-run capability (-N <size>) > already allows it to simulate making a filesystem of any size, so it > looks to me that most of what you need it to do is already in the > mkfs code. Then you can test for the mkfs parameter in > _scratch_mkfs_sized.... I'll look into it. I will also need to change fsck.hfsplus, since it claims it found corruption when the filesystem doesn't fill the device. Thanks. > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
