On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:26:01PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > When a too-small device is created with stripe geometry, we hit an > assert in align_ag_geometry(): > > # truncate --size=10444800 testfile > # mkfs.xfs -dsu=65536,sw=1 testfile > mkfs.xfs: xfs_mkfs.c:2834: align_ag_geometry: Assertion `cfg->agcount != 0' failed. > > This is because align_ag_geometry() finds that the size of the last > (only) AG is too small, and attempts to trim it off. Obviously 0 > AGs is invalid, and we hit the ASSERT. > > Fix this by skipping the last-ag-trim if there is only one AG, and > add a new test to validate_ag_geometry() which offers a very specific, > clear warning if the device (in dblocks) is smaller than the minimum > allowed AG size. > > Reported-by: Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > index a687f385..da8c5986 100644 > --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > @@ -1038,6 +1038,15 @@ validate_ag_geometry( > uint64_t agsize, > uint64_t agcount) > { > + /* Is this device simply too small? */ > + if (dblocks < XFS_AG_MIN_BLOCKS(blocklog)) { > + fprintf(stderr, > + _("device (%lld blocks) too small, need at least %lld blocks\n"), > + (long long)dblocks, > + (long long)XFS_AG_MIN_BLOCKS(blocklog)); > + usage(); > + } Ummm, shouldn't this be caught two checks later down by this: if (agsize > dblocks) { fprintf(stderr, _("agsize (%lld blocks) too big, data area is %lld blocks\n"), (long long)agsize, (long long)dblocks); usage(); } because the agsize has already been validated to be within XFS_AG_MIN_BLOCKS() and XFS_AG_MAX_BLOCKS(), so if dblocks is only 10MB then the agsize must be greater than dblocks as the minimum valid AG size is 16MB.... Also, what's with the repeated agsize < XFS_AG_MIN_BLOCKS(blocklog) and agsize > XFS_AG_MAX_BLOCKS(blocklog) checks in that function? > + > if (agsize < XFS_AG_MIN_BLOCKS(blocklog)) { > fprintf(stderr, > _("agsize (%lld blocks) too small, need at least %lld blocks\n"), > @@ -2827,11 +2836,12 @@ validate: > * and drop the blocks. > */ > if (cfg->dblocks % cfg->agsize != 0 && > + cfg->agcount > 1 && > (cfg->dblocks % cfg->agsize < XFS_AG_MIN_BLOCKS(cfg->blocklog))) { > +printf("%d %d %d\n", cfg->dblocks, cfg->agsize, cfg->dblocks % cfg->agsize); > ASSERT(!cli_opt_set(&dopts, D_AGCOUNT)); > cfg->dblocks = (xfs_rfsblock_t)((cfg->agcount - 1) * cfg->agsize); > cfg->agcount--; > - ASSERT(cfg->agcount != 0); > } We should never get here - this assert and code check is correct and valid - it's pointed us directly to a logic bug in mkfs, so IMO it should not be changed/removed. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx