[Bug 210535] [xfstests generic/466] XFS: Assertion failed: next_agino == irec->ir_startino + XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK, file: fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c, line: 366

[bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210535

--- Comment #5 from Zorro Lang (zlang@xxxxxxxxxx) ---
(In reply to darrick.wong from comment #3)
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 05:14:26PM +0000,
> bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210535
> > 
> >             Bug ID: 210535
> >            Summary: [xfstests generic/466] XFS: Assertion failed:
> >                     next_agino == irec->ir_startino +
> >                     XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK, file: fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c, line:
> >                     366
> >            Product: File System
> >            Version: 2.5
> >     Kernel Version: xfs-linux xfs-5.10-fixes-7
> >           Hardware: All
> >                 OS: Linux
> >               Tree: Mainline
> >             Status: NEW
> >           Severity: normal
> >           Priority: P1
> >          Component: XFS
> >           Assignee: filesystem_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >           Reporter: zlang@xxxxxxxxxx
> >         Regression: No
> > 
> > Created attachment 294021 [details]
> >   --> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=294021&action=edit
> > generic-466.full
> > 
> > xfstests generic/466 hit below assertion failure on power9 ppc64le:
> > 
> > [16404.196161] XFS: Assertion failed: next_agino == irec->ir_startino +
> > XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK, file: fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c, line: 366
> 
> Does this patch fix it?
> 
> --D
> 
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] xfs: fix the forward progress assertion in
> xfs_iwalk_run_callbacks
> 
> In commit 27c14b5daa82 we started tracking the last inode seen during an
> inode walk to avoid infinite loops if a corrupt inobt record happens to
> have a lower ir_startino than the record preceeding it.  Unfortunately,
> the assertion trips over the case where there are completely empty inobt
> records (which can happen quite easily on 64k page filesystems) because
> we advance the tracking cursor without actually putting the empty record
> into the processing buffer.  Fix the assert to allow for this case.
> 
> Reported-by: zlang@xxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: 27c14b5daa82 ("xfs: ensure inobt record walks always make forward
> progress")
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c
> index 2a45138831e3..eae3aff9bc97 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iwalk.c
> @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ xfs_iwalk_run_callbacks(
>       /* Delete cursor but remember the last record we cached... */
>       xfs_iwalk_del_inobt(tp, curpp, agi_bpp, 0);
>       irec = &iwag->recs[iwag->nr_recs - 1];
> -     ASSERT(next_agino == irec->ir_startino + XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK);
> +     ASSERT(next_agino >= irec->ir_startino + XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK);
>  
>       error = xfs_iwalk_ag_recs(iwag);
>       if (error)

I just tested on the same P9 machine which reproduced this bug, generic/466
test passed with this patch

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.