Re: help about ext3 read-only issue on ext3(2.6.16.30)

[Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>]

On 2012/12/5 22:02, Tao Ma wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 06:46 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>>>>>> We highly doubt it's hardware failures with this frequency in mind, so
>>>>>> we're wondering regarding to this issue if there's some ext3 bug-fix
>>>>>> having merged into mainline but not in our old kernel?
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely there are.  There have been 87 changes just to namei.c since 2.6.16.
>>>>> You could look through git logs to see if anything looks applicable.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might try:
>>>>>
>>>>> ef2b02d3e617cb0400eedf2668f86215e1b0e6af ext34: ensure do_split leaves enough free space in both blocks
>>>>
>>>> I've been asked to investigate this issue. Thanks for the reply!
>>>>
>>>> I found this fix while searching for similar bug reports, but I don't think it
>>>> worths trying as we don't use dir_index feature.
>>>>
>>>> I've collected some logs in different machines, and the error was always
>>>> triggered in ext3_readdir:
>>>>
>>>> EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #6685458: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=3860, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
>>>> EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #9650541: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=3960, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
>>>> EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #11124783: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=4072, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
>>>> EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #52740880: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=4024, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
>>>> EXT3-fs error (device sda7): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #52740880: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=4084, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
>>>>
>>>> The last two errors happened on the same machine, and the same inode! One
>>>> happened in 11/22 (I was told they had run fsck later on), and one in 12/01.
>>> So now this directory has been fscked to be right? You can try by just
>>
>> right.
>>
>>> ls this directory and check whether there are any errors in dmesg.
>>>
>>
>> no error at all.
> OK, so now it is fixed by e2fsck. hmm, is there any stress inode

I'm inclined to believe the on-disk dir didn't get corrupted, and so fsck
found no errors.

> creation/deletion in this dir? 2.6.16 is too older although I am not
> sure whether this is a bug or not.

I don't think there're frequent file create/delete/rename ops in the log dir.