From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A647CBF for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:05:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <521CA3F8.7070805@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:04:56 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: XFS: Assertion failed: first <= last && last < BBTOB(bp->b_length), file: fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c, line: 568 References: <52165830.8050006@redhat.com> <20130826041330.GU6023@dastard> <521B59C7.1080803@redhat.com> <521B6D88.30608@sgi.com> <20130826210445.GW6023@dastard> <521BC64A.6040005@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <521BC64A.6040005@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Brian Foster , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 08/26/13 16:19, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 08/26/13 16:04, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:00:24AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: >>> On 08/26/13 08:36, Brian Foster wrote: >>>> On 08/26/2013 12:13 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:28:00PM -0400, 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). >>>>>> >>>>>> crc=1 >>>>>> fsstress -z -fsymlink=1 -n99999999 -p4 -d /mnt/test >>>>>> >>>>>> XFS: Assertion failed: first<= last&& last< BBTOB(bp->b_length), >>>>> >>>>> Directory buffer overrun. > A full test still asserts on the remove with the patched Linux 3.10 - I > am about 50% into the retest of Linux 3.10 and then I was planning to > move back to Linux 3.9. > > kdump did not work, so I have no vmcore and therefore no productive > information. > Confirmed the Linux 3.10 asserts. Linux 3.9 does not assert. I will fix the kdump and try to catch a Linux 3.10 assert. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs