Re: reiserfs + acl corruption

[Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/28/2010 11:29 AM, Marco Gatti wrote:
> I hope to post in the right place.
> I recently suffered a filesystem corruption with reiserfs in a
> production environment and I was able to reproduce it.
> The corruption started when i played with extended attributes, posix
> acls, with a partition containing hundreds of thousands of files.
> To reproduce the issue test it this way (using bash) in a separate
> disk, partition or virtual disk using loopback:
> 
> mkfsreiserfs /dev/sdc1
> mount -o acl /dev/sdc1 /mnt
> cd /mnt
> mkdir dir_with_many_files
> touch dir_with_many_files/{1..100000}
> setfacl -R -m u:username:rw dir_with_many_files
> setfacl -R -x u:username dir_with_many_files	(slow responsiveness of
> system during the execution of this command)
> setfacl -R -b dir_with_many_files
> 
> With a debian lenny standard kernel 2.6.26 (port amd64) these commands
> ends succesfully and no corruption occours.
> With a recent kernel, versions 2.6.32.8 - 2.6.32.9 - 2.6.32.10,
> (x86_64) compiled in different ways, from standard configuration to
> optimized versions even with no support for modules i get thousands of
> this kind of message:
> 
> REISERFS warning (device sdc1): jdm-20002 reiserfs_xattr_get: Invalid
> hash for xattr (system.posix_acl_access) associated with [2 848 0x0
> SD]
> 
> then wierd things start to happen and the more you use this filesystem
> the more you disrupt it: this leads to a corrupted filesystem!
> If you try with less files, let's say 50000, no corruption or error
> occour to me.
> The number of files to reproduce this behaviour could be different and
> it seems to be related to the machine you use: 100000 are enought for
> a virtual machine with 1GB of RAM, but i needed 300000 of files using
> a real machine with 4GB of RAM.
> I tested other filesystem but i get no corruption at all with ext2,
> ext3, ext4 and xfs.
> I use debian stable or testing environments and i'm using reiserfs
> included in vanilla kernels, with default options.
> Am I doing something wrong?
> Can someone test and reproduce this behaviour?

I'll give it a try. There was some churn after 2.6.26 when I pushed my
reiserfs patch queue to mainline but I didn't run into anything like
this in my testing.

- -Jeff

- -- 
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuyQA0ACgkQLPWxlyuTD7K8awCgmxIujWl86sWWXXgpKrvq5kK/
llAAn24y2iD7y6BQyMA+h0f2fxaDKxeQ
=YbfE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----