On 02/11/2014 12:43 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Cody P Schafer wrote:
xfsprogs version: v3.2.0-alpha2-14-g6e79202
uname: Linux hostname 3.11.10-301.fc20.ppc64 #1 SMP Tue Dec 10
00:35:15 MST 2013 ppc64 POWER8 (architected), altivec supported CHRP
IBM,8286-42A GNU/Linux
full log attached.
syncop8lp7 xfsprogs # valgrind ./repair/xfs_repair -n /dev/sda5
.....
Runs fine becuase it doesn't try to fix and write changes.
==6601== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==6601== Copyright (C) 2002-2012, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==6601== Using Valgrind-3.8.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==6601== Command: ./repair/xfs_repair -n /dev/sda5
==6601==
--6601-- WARNING: Serious error when reading debug info
--6601-- When reading debug info from /usr/lib64/valgrind/memcheck-ppc64-linux:
Ok, so you're on ppc64. Big endian or little endian?
Big endian.
syncop8lp7 xfsprogs # valgrind ./repair/xfs_repair /dev/sda5
....
resetting inode 67687581 nlinks from 4 to 3
xfs_dir3_data_write_verify: XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR
libxfs_writebufr: write verifer failed on bno 0x3239040/0x1000
Invalid inode number 0xfeffffffffffffff
That's the smoking gun - the dirents in the rebuilt directory have
invalid inode numbers. They all have the same invalid inode number,
which indicates a bug in the directory reconstruction.
Can you provide a metadump of the broken filesystem to one of us fo
deeper inspection?
Sure:
http://turntable.einic.org/~cody/sda5-2.meta
FWIW, the write verifiers have once again done their job - catching
corruptions caused by software bugs and preventing them from causing
further corruption to the filesystem...
libxfs_writebufr: write verifer failed on bno 0x3298f38/0x1000
==6700== Syscall param pwrite64(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s)
==6700== at 0x40F810C: pwrite64 (pwrite64.c:51)
==6700== by 0x1003ABDB: __write_buf (rdwr.c:801)
==6700== by 0x1003C1B7: libxfs_writebufr (rdwr.c:863)
==6700== by 0x10036C4F: cache_flush (cache.c:600)
==6700== by 0x1003C77B: libxfs_bcache_flush (rdwr.c:994)
==6700== by 0x10004C6B: main (xfs_repair.c:886)
==6700== Address 0xbeb0622 is 34 bytes inside a block of size 4,096 alloc'd
==6700== at 0x406631C: memalign (in /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-ppc64-linux.so)
==6700== by 0x1003ADEF: __initbuf (rdwr.c:367)
==6700== by 0x1003B797: libxfs_getbufr_map (rdwr.c:416)
==6700== by 0x100365C3: cache_node_get (cache.c:273)
==6700== by 0x1003A8DB: __cache_lookup (rdwr.c:519)
==6700== by 0x1003BA6F: libxfs_getbuf_map (rdwr.c:601)
==6700== by 0x1003D333: libxfs_trans_get_buf_map (trans.c:525)
==6700== by 0x10059A3B: xfs_da_get_buf (xfs_da_btree.c:2580)
==6700== by 0x10060E27: xfs_dir3_data_init (xfs_dir2_data.c:558)
==6700== by 0x1006407F: xfs_dir2_leaf_addname (xfs_dir2_leaf.c:826)
==6700== by 0x1005D59B: xfs_dir_createname (xfs_dir2.c:233)
==6700== by 0x100290D3: mv_orphanage (phase6.c:1205)
And that looks kinda related. This has been triggered by the write
of a directory buffer that was created during lost+found processing,
and is a prime candidate for incorrect reconstruction. What is the
head commit of the repo you built this xfs_repair binary from, and
what version of gcc did you use?
xfsprogs version: v3.2.0-alpha2-14-g6e79202
full hash: 6e79202b24ed0dc9ddd8f02e0506182cc6587258
gcc version 4.7.3 (Gentoo 4.7.3-r1 p1.4, pie-0.5.5)
Cheers,
Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
