From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 3 14:01:51 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 6F0E710656A9; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:01:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from mail.zoral.com.ua (mx0.zoral.com.ua [91.193.166.200]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048D58FC15; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:01:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (root@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua [10.1.1.148]) by mail.zoral.com.ua (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p13E1gwc096291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:01:43 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p13E1gGg046315; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:01:42 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: (from kostik@localhost) by deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p13E1gDi046314; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:01:42 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:01:42 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20110203140142.GH78089@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4D47B954.3010600@FreeBSD.org> <201102021704.04274.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110202222023.GA45401@icarus.home.lan> <201102030753.55820.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RDS4xtyBfx+7DiaI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201102030753.55820.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.2 at skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua 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 14:01:51 -0000 --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--