Re: Massive filesystem corruption since kernel 5.2 (ARCH)

From: Adam Bahe <adambahe@gmail.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Massive filesystem corruption since kernel 5.2 (ARCH)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 21:07:07 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACzgC9iSOraUua7YtPz-gsvNRF_6Fp3mvkBenETMsVNwnjvuuQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACzgC9gvhGwyQAKm5J1smZZjim-ecEix62ZQCY-wwJYVzMmJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>

> Until the fix gets merged to 5.2 kernels (and 5.3), I don't really recommend running 5.2 or 5.3.

I know fixes went in to distro specific kernels. But wanted to verify
if the fix went into the vanilla kernel.org kernel? If so, what
version should be safe? ex:
https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/ChangeLog-5.3.6

With 180 raw TB in raid1 I just want to be explicit. Thanks!

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 9:01 PM Adam Bahe <adambahe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Until the fix gets merged to 5.2 kernels (and 5.3), I don't really recommend running 5.2 or 5.3.
>
> I know fixes went in to distro specific kernels. But wanted to verify if the fix went into the vanilla kernel.org kernel? If so, what version should be safe?
>
> ex: https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/ChangeLog-5.3.6
>
> With 180 raw TB in raid1 I just want to be explicit. Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:16 PM Pete <pete@petezilla.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/12/19 3:28 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>
>> >>> 2) writeback for some btree nodes may never be started and we end up
>> >>> committing a transaction without noticing that. This is really
>> >>> serious
>> >>> and that will lead to the "parent transid verify failed on ..."
>> >>> messages.
>>
>> > Two people reported the hang yesterday here on the list, plus at least
>> > one more some weeks ago.
>>
>> This was one of my messages that I got when I reported an issue in the
>> thread 'Chasing IO errors' which occurred in mid to late August.
>>
>>
>> > I hit it myself once last week and once 2 evenings ago with test cases
>> > from fstests after changing my development branch from 5.1 to 5.3-rcX.
>> >
>> > To hit any of the problems, sure, you still need to have some bad
>> > luck, but it's impossible to tell how likely to run into it.
>> > It depends on so many things, from workloads, system configuration, etc.
>> > No matter how likely (and how likely will not be the same for
>> > everyone), it's serious because if it happens you can get a corrupt
>> > filesystem.
>>
>> I can't help you with any specifics workloads causing it.  I just
>> notices that my fs went read only, that is all.
>>
>>