[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: fix sibling pointer tests in verify_dir2_path()

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: fix sibling pointer tests in verify_dir2_path()
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:12:46 -0600
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140220154122.GC26146@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <53051DB5.4080403@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140220154122.GC26146@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
On 2/20/14, 9:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:10:13PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> RH QE reported that if we create a 1G filesystem with default
>> options, mount it, and create inodes until full, then run
>> repair, repair reports corruption in verify_dir2_path() with:
>>> bad back pointer in block 8390324 for directory inode 131
> Can you please wire this up for xfstests?

was working on it, but am hitting something weird, we never
hit ENOSPC when we hit maxicount; we keep creating inodes
but stop incrementing sb counters.  Urk.   (something in lazy
sb code...)


>> The commit 88b32f0 xfs: add CRCs to dir2/da node blocks
>> had a small error which regressed this; although we switch
>> to the "newnode," to check sibling pointers, we re-populate
>> the node hdr with the old "node" data.  This causes the
>> backpointer test to be testing the wrong node's values.
>> Fixing this bug fixes the testcase.
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Looks good,
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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