[Top] [All Lists]

Re: strange behavior of a larger xfs directory

To: Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: strange behavior of a larger xfs directory
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:18:52 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5347920.zaxHybjLeK@xrated>
References: <4300208.uZ6HVTycB6@xrated> <5347920.zaxHybjLeK@xrated>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:55:40PM +0100, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
> Am Montag, 4. März 2013, 17:40:13 schrieb Hans-Peter Jansen:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > after upgrading the kernel on a server from 2.6.34 to 3.8.1 (x86-32), I 
> > suffer from a strange behavior of a larger directory, that a downgrade 
> > of the kernel cannot repair.
> > 
> > The best way to reproduce the problem is cd into that directory and 
> > running "vi .". It should display a full directory listing, but it only 
> > displays a about dozen entries. Another way is just using bash tab 
> > completion (e.g. ls <tab><tab> should display a screenful of items, but 
> > only shows the very same dozen of entries. Userspace is quite old 
> > (openSUSE 11.1/i586, but I cannot upgrade to a newer userspace for a 
> > couple of reasons. OTOH, a simple ls displays the full list again, 
> [...]
> > > # then it preceeds with getdents64 and fetches already fetched entries
> > 
> > 27177 getdents64(3, {
> >              {d_ino=4303329151, d_off=78, d_type=DT_UNKNOWN, d_reclen=32, 
> > d_name="Black_Swan"} 
> Okay, this is the culprit: 0x1007F977F overflows 32 bit, although I 
> *never* mounted anything with inode64 option. 
> For some reason, the intermediate kernel 3.8.0 has used the inode64 version
> by *default*. This breaks bash tab completion and vdr. After forcing the 
> inode32 option and copying some offenders away and back in place, the issue
> vanishes. 
> Unlike stated in the XFS FAQs, openSUSE 11.1 *has* issues with inode64, and
> even more so, if enabled by default.

Wonderful. Report a bug to OpenSuSE and get userspace fixed. It's
only a matter of time before btrfs and ext4 users start reporting
the same problem, as they also use 64 bit inode numbers....


Dave Chinner

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