On Thu 20-12-12 12:32:13, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon 17-12-12 18:51:27, Li Zefan wrote:
> > >>> last_offset=-1, last_fpos=-1, f_pos=4024
> > >>>
> > >>> -1 means we hit the bug in the first iteration in the insde while in
> > >>> ext3_readdir().
> > >>>
> > >>> I've checked how ext3_readdir() works and how f_pos, f_version and i_version
> > >>> get initialized and modified. Now I'm lost. I really can't see how f_pos got
> > >>> corrupted. :(
> > >> Hum, it looks really curious. So f_pos has been 4024 when we entered
> > >> ext3_readdir()?
> > >
> > > dunno. but what else can be
> > >
> > >> Do you know what it was when we last left ext3_readdir()
> > >> for that filp? You can store that value in some debug entry added to struct
> > >> file... Also any chance we ever hit:
> > >> if (version != filp->f_version)
> > >> goto revalidate;
> > >> I don't think it can ever happen since we hold i_mutex and
> > >> generic_file_llseek() takes i_mutex as well. But better be sure.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yesterday I've added more debug aids, which convers all the above information
> > > mentioned. Actually the code tracks all the places that change f_pos, and
> > > I think only lseek() and readdir() can change it.
> > >
> > > Now I'm waiting for the bug to happen again, can be several days...
> > >
> >
> > The bug was triggered again:
> >
> > EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #9372013: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=4028, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> >
> > And I've confirmed f_pos=4028 when we entered ext3_readdir(), while it
> > should be 4096.
> OK, interesting.
>
> > I wrote a simple ring buffer to track operations on log dirs, and from the
> > ring buffer, we can see that there were no lseek, unlink, rename, etc.
> >
> > This is correct:
> >
> > dir=9372013, seq=1549, spot=readdir_1, f_pos=0, f_pos_delta=0
> > dir=9372013, seq=1550, spot=readdir_3, f_pos=0, f_pos_delta=0
> > dir=9372013, seq=1551, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=12, f_pos_delta=12
> > dir=9372013, seq=1552, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=24, f_pos_delta=12
> > ...
> > dir=9372013, seq=1595, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1488, f_pos_delta=28
> > dir=9372013, seq=1596, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1516, f_pos_delta=28
> > dir=9372013, seq=1597, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1556, f_pos_delta=40
> > dir=9372013, seq=1598, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1584, f_pos_delta=28
> > ...
> > dir=9372013, seq=1627, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=2392, f_pos_delta=28
> > dir=9372013, seq=1628, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=4096, f_pos_delta=1704
> > dir=9372013, seq=1629, spot=readdir_1, f_pos=4096, f_pos_delta=0
> >
> > (readir_1 is the entry of readdir(), and readdir_3 is when we enter
> > (f_version != i_version), and readdir_5 is we iterate the dir block)
> Can you post the readdir() code you now run including your logging?
> Thanks!
>
> > Then f_pos went wrong suddenly:
> >
> > dir=9372013, seq=1676, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1488, f_pos_delta=28
> > dir=9372013, seq=1677, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1516, f_pos_delta=28
> > dir=9372013, seq=1678, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1556, f_pos_delta=40
> > dir=9372013, seq=1679, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1516, f_pos_delta=28 <-- !!!!!!!!
> > dir=9372013, seq=1680, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=1540, f_pos_delta=24
> > ...
> > dir=9372013, seq=1708, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=2324, f_pos_delta=28
> > dir=9372013, seq=1709, spot=readdir_5, f_pos=4028, f_pos_delta=1704
> > dir=9372013, seq=1710, spot=readdir_1, f_pos=4028, f_pos_delta=0
> >
> > This is odd...
> >
> > While f_pos was wrong, offset is always correct, and this is not some
> > single-bit error in memory, so someone else changed f_pos? but we were
> > holding i_mutex, and we see nothing else except readdir in the ring
> > buffer...
> How do you know 'offset' was correct? I don't see it in the ring
> buffer... Anyway, this all points to us taking the:
> if (version != filp->f_version)
> goto revalidate;
> branch when 'offset' is already advanced but f_pos isn't. Then we don't
> enter:
> if (filp->f_version != inode->i_version) {
> branch and thus f_pos and 'offset' stay out of sync and problems happen.
>
> But how these strange issues with f_version happen is a mystery for me so
> far.
Were there any more test results regarding this? I'm just curious what
the problem is / was...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
