[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS: Assertion failed: first <= last && last < BBTOB(bp->b_length),

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS: Assertion failed: first <= last && last < BBTOB(bp->b_length), file: fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c, line: 568
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:01:01 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5217929F.5050008@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <52165830.8050006@xxxxxxxxxx> <52176134.6090905@xxxxxxx> <5217640F.7050900@xxxxxxxxxx> <52176A2C.9060708@xxxxxxx> <5217929F.5050008@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 08/23/13 11:49, Brian Foster wrote:
On 08/23/2013 09:57 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 08/23/13 08:30, Brian Foster wrote:
On 08/23/2013 09:18 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 08/22/13 13:28, Brian Foster wrote:
Hi all,

I hit an assert on a debug kernel while beating on some finobt work and
eventually reproduced it on unmodified/TOT xfs/xfsprogs as of today. I
hit it through a couple different paths, first while running
fsstress on
a CRC enabled filesystem (with otherwise default mkfs options):

(These tests are running on a 4p, 4GB VM against a 100GB virtio disk,
hosted on a single spindle desktop box).


So both crashes are directory related. What is the top XFS kernel commit
for these tests?

Hi Mark,

It was the latest from at some point yesterday. I don't think I've
pulled since, so I'm at:

3e3c51ce xfs: add xfs sb v4 support for dirent filetype field

Have you seen this on earlier versions of the kernel?

Well I hit an issue first on my dev. branch for finobt hacking, which is
currently based on a slightly older commit:

2c2bcc07 xfs: call roundup_64() to calculate the min_logblks

Unfortunately I don't have the precise error/stack from that failure on
hand to double check whether it's the exact same failure. I can try to
regenerate it a bit later today.




Good, I just want to make sure the common directory mods for the file
type patch was not the cause. I will try to recreate it too.

And just to confirm, I can hit the assert from both tests on a 2c2bcc07
kernel (pre-dirent ftype change).


Suspected as much, but thank-you for the confirmation.

I guess the next bi-section would be Linux 3.11 to make sure the user/kernel sync did not introduce anything. I thought those moves were clean.

I will shut up and try to help bisect.


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