On 2013.05.06 at 14:14 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/6/13 1:30 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2013.05.06 at 12:04 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 5/6/13 6:27 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >>> Today I accidentally tried to mount my backup disk at /dev/sdc instead
> >>> of /dev/sdc1 and this is what happened:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>> EXT4-fs (sdc): VFS: Can't find ext4 filesystem
> >>> FAT-fs (sdc): bogus number of reserved sectors
> >>> FAT-fs (sdc): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem
> >>> FAT-fs (sdc): bogus number of reserved sectors
> >>> FAT-fs (sdc): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem
> >>> ISOFS: Unable to identify CD-ROM format.
> >>> XFS (sdc): bad magic number
> >>> ffff8800db620000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> >>> ffff8800db620010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> >>> ffff8800db620020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> >>> ffff8800db620030: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> >>> XFS (sdc): Internal error xfs_sb_read_verify at line 726 of file fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c. Caller 0xffffffff8119e5cd
> >>
> >> This seems to be a recent regression.
> >>
> >> Comments above xfs_sb_quiet_read_verify() indicate that this behavior is
> >> to be avoided:
> >>
> >> * We may be probed for a filesystem match, so we may not want to emit
> >> * messages when the superblock buffer is not actually an XFS superblock.
> >>
> >> and it checks for proper magic prior to all the chattiness above int
> >> that function.
> >>
> >> The superblock read is suposed to choose whether to be noisy or not,
> >> in xfs_readsb():
> >>
> >
> > The following patch fixes the issue for me:
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > index f6bfbd7..db8f27f 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > @@ -721,6 +721,11 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> > }
> > error = xfs_sb_verify(bp);
> >
> > + if (error == XFS_ERROR(EWRONGFS)) {
> > + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EWRONGFS);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > out_error:
> > if (error) {
> > XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, bp->b_addr);
>
> That might make sense, I don't think we need the loudness for EWRONGFS
> no matter how we got there.
>
> But:
>
> Out of curiosity, what was the actual mount command you used? It seems like
> the auto-probing should have set the MS_SILENT flag to avoid this in
> the first place, i.e. we should have gone down the quiet path
> (xfs_sb_quiet_read_verify) and avoided this altogether.
>
> How do you reproduce this?
I power on the drive and simply run:
# mount /dev/sdc /mnt
> If I were to patch xfs_read_sb_verify, I'd probably do it like this:
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> index f6bfbd7..7488335 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -723,7 +723,9 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
>
> out_error:
> if (error) {
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, bp->b_addr);
> + if (error != EWRONGFS)
> + XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
> + mp, bp->b_addr);
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, error);
> }
> }
>
> Because it keeps a single return point in the function, and . . .
>
> XFS_ERROR() is never used on the right side of a test; it's only to turn an error
> return into a BUG_ON for certain error numbers when they're set;
OK, makes sense. Thanks.
I like your patch better, so lets use it.
--
Markus
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
