On 6/11/15 11:32 AM, Török Edwin wrote:
> All commands below were run on armv7, and unmounted, the files from
> /tmp copied over to x86-64, gzipped and uploaded, they were never
> mounted on x86-64:
>
> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/xfs2.test bs=1M count=40
> 40+0 records in
> 40+0 records out
> 41943040 bytes (42 MB) copied, 0.419997 s, 99.9 MB/s
> # mkfs.xfs /tmp/xfs2.test
> meta-data=/tmp/xfs2.test isize=256 agcount=2, agsize=5120 blks
> = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=0
> data = bsize=4096 blocks=10240, imaxpct=25
> = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
> naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0
> log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=1200, version=2
> = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
> # cp /tmp/xfs2.test /tmp/xfs2.test.orig
> # umount /export/dfs
> # mount -o loop -t xfs /tmp/xfs2.test /export/dfs
> # mkdir /export/dfs/a
> # sxadm node --new --batch /export/dfs/a/b
> # ls /export/dfs/a/b
> ls: reading directory /export/dfs/a/b: Structure needs cleaning
ok, so dir a/b/ is inode 150400
# ls -id mnt/a/b
150400 mnt/a/b
xfs_db> inode 150400
xfs_db> p
...
core.format = 2 (extents)
...
u.bmx[0-2] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag] 0:[0,9420,1,0] 1:[1,9553,1,0] 2:[8388608,9489,1,0]
so those are the blocks it should be reading as directory data; somehow it's finding a superblock instead (?!)
None of those physical blocks are particularly interesting; 9420, 9553, 9489 - nothing that could/should be weirdly shifted or overflowed or bit-flipped to read block 0, AFAICT.
The hexdump below has superblock magic, and this filesystem has only 2 superblocks, at fs block 0 and fs block 8192. Nothing really in common with the 3 directory blocks above.
> # umount /export/dfs
> # cp /tmp/xfs2.test /tmp/xfs2.test.corrupted
> # dmesg >/tmp/dmesg
> # exit
>
> the latest corruption message from dmesg:
> [4744604.870000] XFS (loop0): Mounting Filesystem
> [4744604.900000] XFS (loop0): Ending clean mount
> [4745016.610000] dc61e000: 58 46 53 42 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 28 00 XFSB..........(.
> [4745016.620000] dc61e010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> [4745016.630000] dc61e020: 64 23 d2 06 32 2e 4c 20 82 6e f0 36 a7 d9 54 f9 d#..2.L .n.6..T.
> [4745016.640000] dc61e030: 00 00 00 00 00 00 20 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80 ...... .........
> [4745016.640000] XFS (loop0): Internal error xfs_dir3_data_read_verify at line 274 of file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_data.c. Caller 0xc01c1528
> [4745016.650000] CPU: 0 PID: 37 Comm: kworker/0:1H Not tainted 3.14.3-00088-g7651c68 #24
> [4745016.650000] Workqueue: xfslogd xfs_buf_iodone_work
> [4745016.650000] [<c0013948>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0011058>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [4745016.650000] [<c0011058>] (show_stack) from [<c01c3dc4>] (xfs_corruption_error+0x54/0x70)
> [4745016.650000] [<c01c3dc4>] (xfs_corruption_error) from [<c01f7854>] (xfs_dir3_data_read_verify+0x60/0xd0)
> [4745016.650000] [<c01f7854>] (xfs_dir3_data_read_verify) from [<c01c1528>] (xfs_buf_iodone_work+0x7c/0x94)
> [4745016.650000] [<c01c1528>] (xfs_buf_iodone_work) from [<c00309f0>] (process_one_work+0xf4/0x32c)
> [4745016.650000] [<c00309f0>] (process_one_work) from [<c0030fb4>] (worker_thread+0x10c/0x388)
> [4745016.650000] [<c0030fb4>] (worker_thread) from [<c0035e10>] (kthread+0xbc/0xd8)
> [4745016.650000] [<c0035e10>] (kthread) from [<c000e8f8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x3c)
> [4745016.650000] XFS (loop0): Corruption detected. Unmount and run xfs_repair
> [4745016.650000] XFS (loop0): metadata I/O error: block 0xa000 ("xfs_trans_read_buf_map") error 117 numblks 8
ok, block 0xA000 (in sectors) is sector 40960...
xfs_db> daddr 40960
xfs_db> fsblock
current fsblock is 8192
xfs_db> type text
xfs_db> p
000: 58 46 53 42 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 28 00 XFSB............
010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
020: 64 23 d2 06 32 2e 4c 20 82 6e f0 36 a7 d9 54 f9 d...2.L..n.6..T.
...
Right, so it's reading the 2nd superblock in xfs_dir3_data_read_verify. Huh?
(I could have imagined some weird scenario where we read block 0, but 8192?
Very strange).
Hm, I don't think this can be readahead, it'd not get to this verifier AFAICT.
Given that the image is enough to reproduce via just mount; ls - we should be
able to reproduce this, given the right hardware, and get to the bottom of it.
Thanks,
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
