From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 3 13:57:08 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04D51065807; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:57:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA38E8FC18; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6541346B17; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:57:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.10]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75CB18A009; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:57:03 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Jeremy Chadwick Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:53:55 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.4-CBSD-20110107; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <4D47B954.3010600@FreeBSD.org> <201102021704.04274.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110202222023.GA45401@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110202222023.GA45401@icarus.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201102030753.55820.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:57:03 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.3 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=4.2 tests=BAYES_00,MAY_BE_FORGED, RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ext2fs crash in -current (r218056) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:57:08 -0000 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 work > > > (sorry): > > > > > > http://dougbarton.us/ext2fs-crash-dump-2.jpg > > > > > > No actual dump this time either. > > > > > > I'm happy to test the patch below on Thursday if there is consensus that > > > it will work. > > > > Err, this is a different panic than what you reported earlier. Your disk died > > and spewed a bunch of EIO errors. I can look at the locking assertion failure > > tomorrow, but this is a differnt issue. Even UFS needed a good bit of work to > > handle disks dying gracefully. > > 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. > > 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"). 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 purposeful feature that allows one to instantly spot if a problem relates to a direct block vs an indirect block. -- John Baldwin