xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Internal error xfs_sb_read_verify at line 726

To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Internal error xfs_sb_read_verify at line 726
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 14:41:03 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130506192629.GA503@x4>
References: <20130506112717.GA502@x4> <5187E290.8090109@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130506183020.GA513@x4> <51880121.8000001@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130506192629.GA503@x4>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
On 5/6/13 2:26 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2013.05.06 at 14:14 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/6/13 1:30 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>> On 2013.05.06 at 12:04 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/13 6:27 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>> Today I accidentally tried to mount my backup disk at /dev/sdc instead
>>>>> of /dev/sdc1 and this is what happened:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> EXT4-fs (sdc): VFS: Can't find ext4 filesystem
>>>>> FAT-fs (sdc): bogus number of reserved sectors
>>>>> FAT-fs (sdc): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem
>>>>> FAT-fs (sdc): bogus number of reserved sectors
>>>>> FAT-fs (sdc): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem
>>>>> ISOFS: Unable to identify CD-ROM format.
>>>>> XFS (sdc): bad magic number
>>>>> ffff8800db620000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
>>>>> ................
>>>>> ffff8800db620010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
>>>>> ................
>>>>> ffff8800db620020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
>>>>> ................
>>>>> ffff8800db620030: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
>>>>> ................
>>>>> XFS (sdc): Internal error xfs_sb_read_verify at line 726 of file 
>>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c.  Caller 0xffffffff8119e5cd
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a recent regression.
>>>>
>>>> Comments above xfs_sb_quiet_read_verify() indicate that this behavior is
>>>> to be avoided:
>>>>
>>>>  * We may be probed for a filesystem match, so we may not want to emit
>>>>  * messages when the superblock buffer is not actually an XFS superblock.
>>>>
>>>> and it checks for proper magic prior to all the chattiness above int
>>>> that function.
>>>>
>>>> The superblock read is suposed to choose whether to be noisy or not,
>>>> in xfs_readsb():
>>>>
>>>
>>> The following patch fixes the issue for me:
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
>>> index f6bfbd7..db8f27f 100644
>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
>>> @@ -721,6 +721,11 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
>>>     }
>>>     error = xfs_sb_verify(bp);
>>>  
>>> +   if (error == XFS_ERROR(EWRONGFS)) {
>>> +           xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EWRONGFS);
>>> +           return;
>>> +   }
>>> +
>>>  out_error:
>>>     if (error) {
>>>             XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, 
>>> bp->b_addr);
>>
>> That might make sense, I don't think we need the loudness for EWRONGFS
>> no matter how we got there.  
>>
>> But:
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what was the actual mount command you used?  It seems like
>> the auto-probing should have set the MS_SILENT flag to avoid this in
>> the first place, i.e. we should have gone down the quiet path
>> (xfs_sb_quiet_read_verify) and avoided this altogether.
>>
>> How do you reproduce this?
> 
> I power on the drive and simply run:
> 
>  # mount /dev/sdc /mnt

Interesting.  On my test box, that never even issues the mount syscall,
because it uses blkid (I guess) to probe, and finds nothing.

Which util-linux do you have?

An strace -v of the mount command might be useful.

-Eric

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