Re: Negative blocks in rebuild-tree

[sh@xxxxxxxx]

On 01/11/11 20:30, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 01/11/2011 02:27 PM, sh@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Hi
> 
>> On 01/09/11 22:40, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2011 07:58 PM, Edward Shishkin wrote:
>>>> On 01/08/2011 02:31 PM, Sebastian Hyrwall wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> Hello.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am getting a negative block-number with reiserfsck when doing
>>>>> --rebuild-tree -S (or without -S). This causes a segmentation fault
>>>>> later (pass 2) in the check because it tries to read a "non-existant
>>>>> block". My rebuild takes 3 days and i didn't copy the stdout-info the
>>>>> first time so I will post some more info as soon as it becomes available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pass 0:
>>>>> ####### Pass 0 #######
>>>>> The whole partition (-710934672 blocks) is to be scanned
>>>>> Skipping 117586 blocks (super block, journal, bitmaps)
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you do have a ~16T partition. Correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>>  -711052258 blocks
>>>
>>> This bit isn't bad typing - it's bad printf formatting. The actual bad
>>> typing is going to be harder to track down. A quick look showed me some
>>> signed block count variables in the debugreiserfs code but the fsck code
>>> may be better off. I'll dig into it.
>>>
>>> Since you're trying to reproduce, it would be great if you capture the
>>> core dump that should happen when you seg fault. Exact output would be
>>> useful as well.
>>>
>>> -Jeff
>>>
>> Pass 1 (will try to insert 3472246 leaves):
>> ####### Pass 1 #######
>> Looking for allocable blocks .. finished
>> 0%....20%^[[A....40%....60%..bc ..80%....100%
>> left 0, 62 /sec
>> Flushing..finished
>>         3472246 leaves read
>>                 3457984 inserted
>>                         - pointers in indirect items pointing to
>> metadata 77 (zeroed)
>>                 14262 not inserted
>>         non-unique pointers in indirect items (zeroed) 71213
>> ####### Pass 2 #######
> 
>> Pass 2:
>> 0%bread: Cannot read the block (18446744072169358012): (Invalid
>> argument). /sec
>> bread: Cannot read the block (18446744072169358012): (Invalid argument).
> 
>> gdb
> 
>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> 0x000000000042008b in ?? ()
> 
>> ---
>> 18446744072169358012 is pretty close to an unsigned int64.
> 
> This looks like a signed int got sign extended to a long.
> 
>> The coredmp is 1.7GB so I will upload that somewhere soon.. :)
> 
> I don't need the whole core dump for now. Can you load up gdb and do:
> 
> gdb reiserfsck core
> 
> (gdb) bt -full
> 
> .. and send the results?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -Jeff
> 

#0  0x000000000042008b in balance_leaf (tb=0x7fffc3d0f920,
ih=0x7fffc3d0f440, body=0x6c83a0 "\001",
    flag=6870296, zeros_num=1) at do_balan.c:902
        item_pos = <value optimized out>
        sbytes = {-1009715552, 32767}
        pos_in_item = 2
        tbS0 = 0x33
        n = 4361609
        ret_val = 35
        bi = {bi_bh = 0x6dbf98, bi_parent = 0x42044a, bi_position = 3}
        snum = {-1009715552, 32767}
        i = 7111584
#1  do_balance (tb=0x7fffc3d0f920, ih=0x7fffc3d0f440, body=0x6c83a0
"\001", flag=6870296, zeros_num=1)
    at do_balan.c:1135
        child_pos = <value optimized out>
        h = <value optimized out>
        insert_key = {{ih_key = {k2_dir_id = 58896, k2_objectid = 58903,
u = {k2_offset_v1 = {
                  k_offset = 1, k_uniqueness = 268435456}, k2_offset_v2
= {k_offset = 1, k_type = 1}}},
            u = {ih2_free_space = 33696, ih2_entry_count = 33696},
ih2_item_len = 108,
            ih2_item_location = 0, ih_format = 0}, {ih_key = {k2_dir_id
= 3285251744, k2_objectid = 32767,
              u = {k2_offset_v1 = {k_offset = 7192432, k_uniqueness =
0}, k2_offset_v2 = {
                  k_offset = 7192432, k_type = 0}}}, u = {ih2_free_space
= 0, ih2_entry_count = 0},
            ih2_item_len = 0, ih2_item_location = 0, ih_format = 0}}
        insert_ptr = {0x3f4000, 0x41ff50}
#2  0x000000000042a723 in search_by_key (fs=0x6bcd00,
p_s_key=0x7fffc3d0ca30, p_s_search_path=0x49,
    n_stop_level=1413791264) at stree.c:314
        sb = <value optimized out>
        n_block_number = <value optimized out>
        expected_level = 0
        n_block_size = <value optimized out>
        n_retval = <value optimized out>
        __FUNCTION__ = "search_by_key"
#3  0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
No symbol table info available.


--

Also.. I think (not used to debugging.. ;),

(gdb) list
907               struct item_head * pasted;
908
909               pasted = B_N_PITEM_HEAD (tbS0, item_pos);
910               /* when directory, may be new entry already pasted */
911               if (I_IS_DIRECTORY_ITEM (pasted)) {
912             if ( pos_in_item >= 0 && pos_in_item <=
get_ih_entry_count (pasted) ) {
913                 /* prepare space */
914                 bi.bi_bh = tbS0;
915                 bi.bi_parent = PATH_H_PPARENT (tb->tb_path, 0);
916                 bi.bi_position = PATH_H_POSITION (tb->tb_path, 1);



> 
> 
> 
>>>
>>>>> will be read
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have any idea on how to fix this?
>>>>>
>>>>> On a 64-bit system.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It looks like you have encountered an overflow/truncation fsck bug
>>>> specific to giant volumes.
>>>
>>>> I would first ask Jeff: AFAIK he is planning to enable 16T files
>>>> in reiserfs.
>>>> Jeff, do you have any non-published fixups for such problems?
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Edward.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Sebastian H
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>>>>> reiserfs-devel" in
>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html