Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:01:42 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ext2fs crash in -current (r218056) Message-ID: <20110203140142.GH78089@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <201102030753.55820.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4D47B954.3010600@FreeBSD.org> <201102021704.04274.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110202222023.GA45401@icarus.home.lan> <201102030753.55820.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--RDS4xtyBfx+7DiaI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 07:53:55AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:20:23 pm Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:04:03PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 04:13:48 pm Doug Barton wrote: > > > > I haven't had a chance to test this patch yet, but John's did not w= ork > > > > (sorry): > > > >=20 > > > > http://dougbarton.us/ext2fs-crash-dump-2.jpg > > > >=20 > > > > No actual dump this time either. > > > >=20 > > > > I'm happy to test the patch below on Thursday if there is consensus= that > > > > it will work. > > >=20 > > > Err, this is a different panic than what you reported earlier. Your = disk died=20 > > > and spewed a bunch of EIO errors. I can look at the locking assertio= n failure=20 > > > tomorrow, but this is a differnt issue. Even UFS needed a good bit o= f work to=20 > > > handle disks dying gracefully. > >=20 > > Are the byte offsets shown in the screenshot within the range of the > > drive's capacity? They're around the 10.7GB mark, but I have no idea > > what size disk is being used. > >=20 > > The reason I ask is that there have been reported issues in the past > > where the offsets shown are way outside of the range of the permitted > > byte offsets of the disk itself (and in some cases even showing a > > negative number; what is it with people not understanding the difference > > between signed and unsigned types? Sigh), and I want to make sure this > > isn't one of those situations. I also don't know if underlying > > filesystem corruption could cause the problem in question ("filesystem > > says you should write to block N, which is outside of the permitted > > range of the device"). >=20 > Just one comment. UFS uses negative block numbers to indicate an indirect > block (or some such) as opposed to a direct block of data. It's a purpos= eful > feature that allows one to instantly spot if a problem relates to a direct > block vs an indirect block. Yes, but the block numbers are negative within the vnode address range, not for the on-disk block numbers. ufs_bmap() shall translate negative vnode block numbers to the positive disk block numbers before buffer is passed down. --RDS4xtyBfx+7DiaI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk1KtUYACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4geOwCgiz5UyQzCOIQtrpul14qSa2c2 n9EAmwWwtzKnOI+l8fIhfiUJKdKmjGzk =bmS7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RDS4xtyBfx+7DiaI--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110203140142.GH78089>