On 2018年05月28日 11:47, Steve Leung wrote:
> On 05/26/2018 06:57 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年05月26日 22:06, Steve Leung wrote:
>>> On 05/20/2018 07:07 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2018年05月21日 04:43, Steve Leung wrote:
>>>>> On 05/19/2018 07:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018年05月20日 07:40, Steve Leung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/17/2018 11:49 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018年05月18日 13:23, Steve Leung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi list,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've got 3-device raid1 btrfs filesystem that's throwing up some
>>>>>>>>> "corrupt leaf" errors in dmesg.  This is a uniquified list I've
>>>>>>>>> observed lately:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1
>>>>>>>>> block=4970196795392
>>>>>>>>> slot=307 ino=206231 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for
>>>>>>>>> uncompressed
>>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 3468 expect 3469
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you please use "btrfs-debug-tree -b 4970196795392
>>>>>>>> /dev/sda1" to
>>>>>>>> dump the leaf?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Attached btrfs-debug-tree dumps for all of the blocks that I saw
>>>>>>> messages for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's caught by tree-checker code which is ensuring all tree blocks
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> correct before btrfs can take use of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That inline extent size check is tested, so I'm wondering if this
>>>>>>>> indicates any real corruption.
>>>>>>>> That btrfs-debug-tree output will definitely help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, if I didn't miss anything, there should not be any inlined
>>>>>>>> extent
>>>>>>>> in root tree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1
>>>>>>>>> block=4970552426496
>>>>>>>>> slot=91 ino=209736 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for
>>>>>>>>> uncompressed
>>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 3496 expect 3497
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same dump will definitely help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1
>>>>>>>>> block=4970712399872
>>>>>>>>> slot=221 ino=205230 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for
>>>>>>>>> uncompressed
>>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 1790 expect 1791
>>>>>>>>>       BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1
>>>>>>>>> block=4970803920896
>>>>>>>>> slot=368 ino=205732 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for
>>>>>>>>> uncompressed
>>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 2475 expect 2476
>>>>>>>>>       BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1
>>>>>>>>> block=4970987945984
>>>>>>>>> slot=236 ino=208896 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for
>>>>>>>>> uncompressed
>>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 490 expect 491
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of them seem to be 1 short of the expected value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some files do seem to be inaccessible on the filesystem, and btrfs
>>>>>>>>> inspect-internal on any of those inode numbers fails with:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      ERROR: ino paths ioctl: Input/output error
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and another message for that inode appears.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'btrfs check' (output attached) seems to notice these corruptions
>>>>>>>>> (among
>>>>>>>>> a few others, some of which seem to be related to a problematic
>>>>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>>>>> to build Android I posted about some months ago).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other information:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Arch Linux x86-64, kernel 4.16.6, btrfs-progs 4.16.  The
>>>>>>>>> filesystem
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> about 25 snapshots at the moment, only a handful of compressed
>>>>>>>>> files,
>>>>>>>>> and nothing fancy like qgroups enabled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> btrfs fi show:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      Label: none  uuid: 9d4db9e3-b9c3-4f6d-8cb4-60ff55e96d82
>>>>>>>>>              Total devices 4 FS bytes used 2.48TiB
>>>>>>>>>              devid    1 size 1.36TiB used 1.13TiB path /dev/sdd1
>>>>>>>>>              devid    2 size 464.73GiB used 230.00GiB path
>>>>>>>>> /dev/sdc1
>>>>>>>>>              devid    3 size 1.36TiB used 1.13TiB path /dev/sdb1
>>>>>>>>>              devid    4 size 3.49TiB used 2.49TiB path /dev/sda1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> btrfs fi df:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      Data, RAID1: total=2.49TiB, used=2.48TiB
>>>>>>>>>      System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=416.00KiB
>>>>>>>>>      Metadata, RAID1: total=7.00GiB, used=5.29GiB
>>>>>>>>>      GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dmesg output attached as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance for any assistance!  I have backups of all the
>>>>>>>>> important stuff here but it would be nice to fix the
>>>>>>>>> corruptions in
>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And btrfs check doesn't report the same problem as the default
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> mode doesn't have such check.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please also post the result of "btrfs check --mode=lowmem
>>>>>>>> /dev/sda1"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, attached.  It seems to notice the same off-by-one problems,
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> there also seem to be a couple of examples of being off by more than
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, it doesn't detect, as there is no off-by-one error at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, kernel is reporting error on completely fine leaf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further more, even in the same leaf, there are more inlined extents,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> they are all valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the kernel reports the error out of nowhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More problems happens for extent_size where a lot of them is
>>>>>> offset by
>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover, the root owner is not printed correctly, thus I'm
>>>>>> wondering if
>>>>>> the memory is corrupted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please try memtest+ to verify all your memory is correct, and if so,
>>>>>> please try the attached patch and to see if it provides extra info.
>>>>>
>>>>> Memtest ran for about 12 hours last night, and didn't find any errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> New messages from patched kernel:
>>>>>
>>>>>    BTRFS critical (device sdd1): corrupt leaf: root=1
>>>>> block=4970196795392
>>>>> slot=307 ino=206231 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for uncompressed
>>>>> inline extent, have 3468 expect 3469 (21 + 3448)
>>>>
>>>> This output doesn't match with debug-tree dump.
>>>>
>>>> item 307 key (206231 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 15118 itemsize 3468
>>>>      generation 692987 type 0 (inline)
>>>>      inline extent data size 3447 ram_bytes 3447 compression 0 (none)
>>>>
>>>> Where its ram_bytes is 3447, not 3448.
>>>>
>>>> Further more, there are 2 more inlined extent, if something really went
>>>> wrong reading ram_bytes, it should also trigger the same warning.
>>>>
>>>> item 26 key (206227 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 30917 itemsize 175
>>>>      generation 367 type 0 (inline)
>>>>      inline extent data size 154 ram_bytes 154 compression 0 (none)
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> item 26 key (206227 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 30917 itemsize 175
>>>>      generation 367 type 0 (inline)
>>>>      inline extent data size 154 ram_bytes 154 compression 0 (none)
>>>>
>>>> The only way to get the number 3448 is from its inode item.
>>>>
>>>> item 305 key (206231 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 18607 itemsize 160
>>>>      generation 1136104 transid 1136104 size 3447 nbytes  >>3448<<
>>>>      block group 0 mode 100644 links 1 uid 1000 gid 1000 rdev 0
>>>>      sequence 4 flags 0x0(none)
>>>>      atime 1390923260.43167583 (2014-01-28 15:34:20)
>>>>      ctime 1416461176.910968309 (2014-11-20 05:26:16)
>>>>      mtime 1392531030.754511511 (2014-02-16 06:10:30)
>>>>      otime 0.0 (1970-01-01 00:00:00)
>>>>
>>>> But the slot is correct, and nothing wrong with these item
>>>> offset/length.
>>>>
>>>> And the problem of wrong "root=" output also makes me pretty curious.
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible to make a btrfs-image dump if all the filenames in this
>>>> fs are not sensitive?
>>>
>>> Hi Qu Wenruo,
>>>
>>> I sent details of the btrfs-image to you in a private message. Hopefully
>>> you've received it and will find it useful.
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't find the private message.
> 
> Ok, resent with a subject of "resend: btrfs image dump".  Hopefully it
> didn't get caught by your spam filter.

Still nope.
What about encrypt it and upload it to some public storage provider like
google drive/dropbox?

Thanks,
Qu

> 
> Steve
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html