Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:20:31 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Subject: Re: panic ffs_truncate3 (maybe fuse being evil) Message-ID: <853868666.163292727.1452986431921.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20160116191116.GI3942@kib.kiev.ua> References: <1696608910.154845456.1452438117036.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <1773157955.158922767.1452698181137.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <1351730674.159022044.1452699617235.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <20160114092934.GL72455@kib.kiev.ua> <964333498.161527381.1452827658163.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <20160115095749.GC3942@kib.kiev.ua> <1817287612.162823118.1452909605928.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <20160116191116.GI3942@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kostik wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:00:05PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > --- ufs/ffs/ffs_inode.c.sav 2016-01-10 20:11:46.406682000 -0500
> > +++ ufs/ffs/ffs_inode.c 2016-01-15 17:22:58.465991000 -0500
> > @@ -544,7 +544,12 @@ done:
> > BO_LOCK(bo);
> > if (length == 0 &&
> > (fs->fs_magic != FS_UFS2_MAGIC || ip->i_din2->di_extsize == 0) &&
> > - (bo->bo_dirty.bv_cnt > 0 || bo->bo_clean.bv_cnt > 0))
> > + ((bo->bo_dirty.bv_cnt > 0 && (TAILQ_EMPTY(&bo->bo_dirty.bv_hd) ||
> > + TAILQ_FIRST(&bo->bo_dirty.bv_hd)->b_lblkno >= 0 ||
> > + TAILQ_FIRST(&bo->bo_dirty.bv_hd)->b_lblkno < -2)) ||
> > + (bo->bo_clean.bv_cnt > 0 && (TAILQ_EMPTY(&bo->bo_clean.bv_hd) ||
> > + TAILQ_FIRST(&bo->bo_clean.bv_hd)->b_lblkno >= 0 ||
> > + TAILQ_FIRST(&bo->bo_clean.bv_hd)->b_lblkno < -2))))
> > panic("ffs_truncate3");
> > BO_UNLOCK(bo);
> > #endif /* INVARIANTS */
>
> So I tried to rewrite the assert to be more readable, and noted a thing
> which I should have noted much earlier.
>
> The ip->i_din2->di_extsize == 0 test ensures that both extattr blocks
> are deallocated. In other words, even with the new information about
> lba of the leaked buffers, the assert is still correct, it catched
> stray buffer which should not be there.
>
> Was IO_EXT flag passed to the ffs_truncate() invocation where the
> assert ffs_truncate3 fired ?
>
Yes. The only call to UFS_TRUNCATE() in ufs_inactive() specified both
IO_EXT | IO_NORMAL.
rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?853868666.163292727.1452986431921.JavaMail.zimbra>