[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/5] [PATCH] xfs: fix attr2 vs large data fork assert

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] [PATCH] xfs: fix attr2 vs large data fork assert
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:48:16 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20111117073004.GB3733@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20111115201407.038216766@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111115201426.498870090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111116231517.GA7046@dastard> <20111117073004.GB3733@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Hey Christoph,

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 02:30:04AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:15:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 03:14:08PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > With Dmitry fsstress updates I've seen very reproducible crashes in
> > > xfs_attr_shortform_remove because xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit claims that
> > > the attributes would not fit inline into the inode after removing an
> > > attribute.  It turns out that we were operating on an inode with lots
> > > of delalloc extents, and thus an if_bytes values for the data fork that
> > > is larger than biggest possible on-disk storage for it which utterly
> > > confuses the code near the end of xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit.
> > 
> > We have a test that stresses allocated extents vs attributes in the
> > xfs_fsr swapext test (227), but that does not take into account
> > delalloc extents. It sounds like it would be relatively easy to
> > write a regression test for this particular case - create a file
> > with a bunch of attributes, then create a number of delalloc data
> > extents, then remove the attributes to trigger the condition in
> > xfs_attr_shortform_remove()....
> Test 117 with Dmitries new fsstress changes hit it 100% reliably
> before
>       xfstests: freeze fsstress options for 117'th
> I was planning on adding a copy of the test using an explicit
> combination of fsstress seeds that reproduce the issue.

FYI, Test 117 also hit it for me after I backed off 'freeze fsstress
options'.  Are you still planning on adding a copy of the test with the
seeds in question?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>