On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:02 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Commit 854437ca3c228d8ab3eb24d2efc1c21b5d56a635 ("btrfs-progs:
> extent-tree: avoid allocating tree block that crosses stripe boundary")
> does not work for 64k nodesize. Due to an off-by-one error, all queries
> to check_crossing_stripes will return that all extents cross a stripe
> and this will lead to a false ENOSPC. This crashes later
>
> $ ./mkfs.btrfs -n 64k image
>
> ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb77)[0x417f38]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_alloc_free_block+0x57)[0x417fe0]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(__btrfs_cow_block+0x163)[0x408eb7]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_cow_block+0xd0)[0x4097c4]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_search_slot+0x16f)[0x40be4d]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_insert_empty_items+0xc0)[0x40d5f9]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_insert_item+0x99)[0x40da5f]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_make_block_group+0x4d)[0x41705c]
> ./mkfs.btrfs(main+0xeef)[0x434b56]
Am I correct that this also causes false positives with btrfs check? I just
ran a sanity check on an fs that had no problems whatsoever and was
definitely not converted (so 16k nodesize) and got thousands of
cross-stripe complaints; repair didn't help. Applying the patch seems to
have fixed those; it completes without problems now.
Holger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
