Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:53:55 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ext2fs crash in -current (r218056) Message-ID: <201102030753.55820.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20110202222023.GA45401@icarus.home.lan> References: <4D47B954.3010600@FreeBSD.org> <201102021704.04274.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110202222023.GA45401@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201102030753.55820.jhb>