From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from esa12.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com (esa12.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com [139.138.37.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5DCEFC0C for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:33:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=139.138.37.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721964787; cv=none; b=pgLDCBhwGi5abLMA4oU8w+3f4T7/g/NqyLaqxB0IqqbuczzaBS2dXLphDzkinIeAUDDqZBTmpYollHtgCMm/Zo9jek5djsel/D4W8gmY1Q7amOTQlI61ohWtf67C0gULQx6RpBnP9Tl94l97ZM1moPhSa3LoLJZMVYSFnRRDHgo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721964787; c=relaxed/simple; bh=biuZXjCha37WSuDqCEe8lsO9No2/TrE3Hj8DZ9WhgAE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=THvCDUPcOVJB6ouPpSn8PRgbYViC6/ia/FNn3EqsvBdrtBar617XhGID2FKRHDpGkxiiXKdD0Ha8/K36Es5VB8VqYBqh4UtY2HmrNZGHW88z4cCgVx/FQDRsMW3dV8R/3ULjIX8eIaU9kbK7/Agad4fqYFJwknP7aI4qt3z5iuw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fujitsu.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.b=FPHG6PgX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=139.138.37.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.b="FPHG6PgX" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=fujitsu.com; i=@fujitsu.com; q=dns/txt; s=fj2; t=1721964784; x=1753500784; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=biuZXjCha37WSuDqCEe8lsO9No2/TrE3Hj8DZ9WhgAE=; b=FPHG6PgXY4GNirqIIEYIrAU1WgsVhKhA0bg9mWxM9ZAzwAx91bMUnyX7 Pxi00CkdSVm+dRIi4BMX7KkU/CyNadAmbhYU8ZdEtmYzjkwVOj3QrKTX+ M8d6iJJ4FrIjvIAqFdWvFenMMRyiNR6PEWAK9q+jdPvp6D/M5T06DyPFE Dw07Iovc7VYMo4z/y2gnuKpSRaZgQsmtyw/3C5pkaObu8GeopUW59W4I4 ufn/g8xXjsuBsJdTCBmCKIGC1195I/jFTYWzrGvCAIaRxwDOQAyLs+KFh Lw9sNOyC30R60ulWI3hQeTc0bhk7xaN5DsYXgddHTkkGM/H6WP/uIvy2d A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11144"; a="147630460" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,237,1716217200"; d="scan'208";a="147630460" Received: from unknown (HELO yto-r4.gw.nic.fujitsu.com) ([218.44.52.220]) by esa12.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jul 2024 12:32:56 +0900 Received: from yto-m4.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (yto-nat-yto-m4.gw.nic.fujitsu.com [192.168.83.67]) by yto-r4.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E733B202 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:32:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from kws-ab3.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (kws-ab3.gw.nic.fujitsu.com [192.51.206.21]) by yto-m4.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F59D3F00 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:32:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from edo.cn.fujitsu.com (edo.cn.fujitsu.com [10.167.33.5]) by kws-ab3.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8E2008B38D for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:32:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [10.167.226.182]) by edo.cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FB71A0002; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:32:52 +0800 (CST) From: Ma Xinjian To: fstests@vger.kernel.org Cc: Ma Xinjian Subject: [Issue] xfs: g/754, xfs_repair reports mismatch between format and size in symlink ino Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:33:42 +0800 Message-ID: <20240726033342.1140741-1-maxj.fnst@fujitsu.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.42.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-9.1.0.1417-9.0.0.1002-28552.004 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TMASE-Version: IMSS-9.1.0.1417-9.0.1002-28552.004 X-TMASE-Result: 10--15.343200-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: hs9D2gaFIvw23AXUgL0utSZm6wdY+F8KBGvINcfHqhfDQeGGV/t6W+K5 fhRxt1aA7aNKlE9CoEpVhnxWlpagXFYhsfYDNozrfOaYwP8dcX6y2aVB7PCjFYX7FMW9wKnPa3A 6hcNu8nBQlBV/yf2TpJW17JVbFIiv/ZG8oSoOiZRntEdzQBf3IascWEcqpe5Lb3Wpj9NSXKxNsi /bk0au/ZCmC/tkNyfQj/pFz/QcMFtar5w2HtLCZDzHAJTgtKqwMzbF1gbxlQa+NoS24uNuA659P qiGJBeBeNwTkAnhVbPJYSspdGUQuIKsAsgH2MpmuV7H+spKHhOd2Wz0X3OaLZsoi2XrUn/Jn6Kd MrRsL14qtq5d3cxkNQwWxr7XDKH8dxy/pllwtg8ubvN+CMC0IZf9wLAYEOoWpvZHnrbNE65CJk/ qE7tnXg== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Hi Using upstream kernel, the symlink does not get corrupted in the test of generic/754 on xfs. But the check of xfs_repair still fails with "mismatch between format (2) and size (297) in symlink ino 139". Does xfs_repair need to make corresponding modifications to the upstream kernel fix commit? Could anyone help take a look? Package Version: kernel: 6.10.0 xfs_repair: 6.9.0 Results: ``` # ./check generic/754 FSTYP -- xfs (non-debug) PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 localhost 6.10.0 #2 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed Jul 24 05:36:54 EDT 2024 MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f /dev/loop1 MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/xfstests/scratch generic/754 _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/loop1 is inconsistent (r) (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/754.full for details) HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fix: XXXXXXXXXXXXX xfs: allow symlinks with short remote targets Ran: generic/754 Failures: generic/754 Failed 1 of 1 tests ``` Output of "xfs_repair -n": ``` Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... Phase 2 - using internal log - zero log... - scan filesystem freespace and inode maps... - found root inode chunk Phase 3 - for each AG... - scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists... - process known inodes and perform inode discovery... - agno = 0 mismatch between format (2) and size (297) in symlink ino 139 bad data fork in symlink 139 would have cleared inode 139 mismatch between format (2) and size (330) in symlink ino 140 bad data fork in symlink 140 would have cleared inode 140 - agno = 1 - agno = 2 - agno = 3 - process newly discovered inodes... Phase 4 - check for duplicate blocks... - setting up duplicate extent list... unknown block state, ag 0, blocks 14-15 - check for inodes claiming duplicate blocks... - agno = 1 - agno = 0 entry "symlink.288" at block 0 offset 288 in directory inode 128 references free inode 139 would clear inode number in entry at offset 288... - agno = 2 - agno = 3 entry "symlink.320" at block 0 offset 312 in directory inode 128 references free inode 140 would clear inode number in entry at offset 312... mismatch between format (2) and size (297) in symlink ino 139 bad data fork in symlink 139 would have cleared inode 139 mismatch between format (2) and size (330) in symlink ino 140 bad data fork in symlink 140 would have cleared inode 140 No modify flag set, skipping phase 5 Phase 6 - check inode connectivity... - traversing filesystem ... entry "symlink.288" in directory inode 128 points to free inode 139, would junk entry entry "symlink.320" in directory inode 128 points to free inode 140, would junk entry bad hash table for directory inode 128 (no data entry): would rebuild would rebuild directory inode 128 - traversal finished ... - moving disconnected inodes to lost+found ... Phase 7 - verify link counts... No modify flag set, skipping filesystem flush and exiting. ```