[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[linux-lvm] Fwd: Re: lvm - lvm_map access beyond end of device



Resent after subscribing to your list... original quoted in multiple
replies.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: lvm - lvm_map access beyond end of device
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:01:33 -0600
From: Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey hundstad mnsu edu>
Organization: Minnesota State University, Mankato
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger turbolinux com>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel vger kernel org>,linux-lvm sistina com
References: <200103090046 f290kV607666 webber adilger net>

Andreas Dilger wrote:

> Jeffrey Hundstad writes:
> > After about 27 days of uptime one of our Linux machines that is being
> > used as a Samba, Netatalk, and FTP server; the main data mount went into
> > a read-only state.
>  [snip]
> > We are mounting that 656GB disk as an EXT2 mount on /data.
>
> As an aside, other than this problem, how do you find ext2 on such a large
> filesystem?  So far this is the largest ext2 filesystem I've seen.  Are
> you looking into ext3 at all to avoid fsck on crash?  Granted, in this
> case you still needed to do the whole fsck but in other cases ext3 would
> help.

EXT2 is nice and snappy.  This is our first crash... but the fsck was
fun to watch ;)  We
might switch if there is a stable alternative.  I've used EXT3 on my
personal system and it
worked fine, and it was really sweet to move from EXT2<->EXT3. Do you
recommend it for a
production system?  Why isn't it in 2.2.18 OR 2.4.x?


>
> > ...during normal use we got events in our syslog (attached), also note
> > the RAID controller showed no events.  After a umount of the mounted
> > filesystem, a reboot then a fsck the system worked fine.  There
> > were no bad reports from the fsck.  Yes, I said no bad reports from
> > fsck, it did take 3.5 hours though.  What's causing this?
> >
> > Mar  8 01:15:47 files kernel: lvm - lvm_map access beyond end of device;
> > *rsector: 2451636592 or size: 8 wrong for minor:  0
> > Mar  8 01:15:47 files kernel: Bad lvm_map in ll_rw_block
> > Mar  8 01:15:47 files kernel: EXT2-fs error (device lvm(58,0)):
> > ext2_readdir: bad entry in directory #43122713: rec_len is smaller than
> > minimal - offset=0, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> > Mar  8 01:15:47 files kernel: Remounting filesystem read-only
> > Mar  8 01:15:48 files kernel: lvm - lvm_map access beyond end of device;
> > *rsector: 2596938272 or size: 8 wrong for minor:  0
> > Mar  8 01:15:48 files kernel: Bad lvm_map in ll_rw_block
> > Mar  8 01:15:48 files kernel: EXT2-fs error (device lvm(58,0)):
> > ext2_readdir: bad entry in directory #43122714: rec_len is smaller than
> > minimal - offset=0, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> > Mar  8 01:15:48 files kernel: Remounting filesystem read-only
>
> Is this the only output in your syslog, a representative sample, a
> small part of a huge number of messages?  How often do you have this
> problem, or is it the first time?
>

This was a `grep kernel` of the days syslog file.  I did take a look and
it was the only thing
relevant.


>
> Can you verify that inodes 43122713 and 43122714 are actually valid
> directories or at least valid inode numbers?  dumpe2fs -h should be
> enough to tell you the number of inodes in the filesystem.
>

# dumpe2fs -h /dev/vg0/lv0
Filesystem volume name:   <none>
Last mounted on:          <not available>
Filesystem UUID:          1e473942-d8f1-4e48-905f-2f872f7e4424
Filesystem magic number:  0xEF53
Filesystem revision #:    1 (dynamic)
Filesystem features:      filetype sparse_super
Filesystem state:         not clean
Errors behavior:          Continue
Filesystem OS type:       Linux
Inode count:              87375872
Block count:              174723072
Reserved block count:     0
Free blocks:              163429202
Free inodes:              86687944
First block:              0
Block size:               4096
Fragment size:            4096
Blocks per group:         32768
Fragments per group:      32768
Inodes per group:         16384
Inode blocks per group:   512
Last mount time:          Thu Mar  8 12:28:00 2001
Last write time:          Thu Mar  8 22:42:13 2001
Mount count:              1
Maximum mount count:      20
Last checked:             Thu Mar  8 12:27:58 2001
Check interval:           15552000 (6 months)
Next check after:         Tue Sep  4 13:27:58 2001
Reserved blocks uid:      0 (user root)
Reserved blocks gid:      0 (group root)
First inode:              11
Inode size:               128



>
> According to my calculations for your 656 GB 4kB block filesystem:
>
> sector 2451636592 / 8 sectors/block = 306454574
> sector 2596938272 / 8 sectors/block = 324617284
>
> 656 GB * 1024 MB/GB * 256 blocks/MB = 171966464 blocks
>
> So LVM is correct in refusing to map these blocks.  The real question is
> where do the block numbers come from?  The "bad entry" messages are
> simply a result of LVM not filling in the buffer for ext2, and it is
> all zeros.
>
> The first point where we could have a bogus block number would be
> in inode_getblk(), where we access inode->u.ext2_i.i_data[0] (the
> block number here is not checked), but you say that e2fsck reported
> all was well.
>
> The below patch for 2.2.18 verifies the block numbers read from disk
> before reading them.  It would at least help narrow down the problem here.

I'll see if I can add them in next reboot... which is tricky business
with a 24x7 machine in
production.  I'll insert this into 2.2.19 when it comes out.


>
>
> Cheers, Andreas
> ========================================================================
> --- fs/ext2/inode.c.orig        Wed Jan 17 03:22:51 2001
> +++ fs/ext2/inode.c     Thu Mar  8 17:35:33 2001
> @@ -228,13 +228,20 @@
>                                           int create, int new_block, int * err)
>  {
>         u32 * p;
> -       int tmp, goal = 0;
> +       u32 tmp, goal = 0;
>         struct buffer_head * result;
>         int blocks = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize / 512;
>
>         p = inode->u.ext2_i.i_data + nr;
>  repeat:
>         tmp = *p;
> +       if (tmp > le32_to_cpu(EXT2_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_es->s_blocks_count)) {
> +               ext2_warning(inode->i_sb, __FUNCTION__,
> +                            "inode #%u has bad direct block[%d] = %u\n",
> +                            inode->i_ino, nr, tmp);
> +               *err = -EIO;
> +               return NULL;
> +       }
>         if (tmp) {
>                 struct buffer_head * result;
>                 result = getblk (inode->i_dev, le32_to_cpu(tmp), inode->i_sb->s_blocksize);
> @@ -293,7 +301,7 @@
>                                           int create, int blocksize,
>                                           int new_block, int * err)
>  {
> -       int tmp, goal = 0;
> +       u32 tmp, goal = 0;
>         u32 * p;
>         struct buffer_head * result;
>         int blocks = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize / 512;
> @@ -311,6 +319,13 @@
>         p = (u32 *) bh->b_data + nr;
>  repeat:
>         tmp = le32_to_cpu(*p);
> +       if (tmp > le32_to_cpu(EXT2_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_es->s_blocks_count)) {
> +               ext2_warning(inode->i_sb, __FUNCTION__,
> +                            "inode #%u has bad indirect block[%u][%d] = %u\n",
> +                            inode->i_ino, bh->b_blocknr, nr, tmp);
> +               *err = -EIO;
> +               return NULL;
> +       }
>         if (tmp) {
>                 result = getblk (bh->b_dev, tmp, blocksize);
>                 if (tmp == le32_to_cpu(*p)) {



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
in
the body of a message to majordomo vger kernel org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]