Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:1163

[Martin Mailand <martin@tuxadero.com>]

Am 19.10.2011 11:49, schrieb David Sterba:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
>> [28997.273289] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [28997.282916] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:1163!
>
> 1119                 fi = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, path->slots[0],
> 1120                                     struct btrfs_file_extent_item);
> 1121                 extent_type = btrfs_file_extent_type(leaf, fi);
> 1122
> 1123                 if (extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG ||
> 1124                     extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) {
> ...
> 1158                 } else if (extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_INLINE) {
> 1159                         extent_end = found_key.offset +
> 1160                                 btrfs_file_extent_inline_len(leaf, fi);
> 1161                         extent_end = ALIGN(extent_end, root->sectorsize);
> 1162                 } else {
> 1163                         BUG_ON(1);
> 1164                 }
>
> rc10 kernel sources point to this, can you please verify it in your
> sources? if it's really this one, that means that it's an unhandled
> extent_type read from the b-tree leaf and could be a corruption. (the
> value is directly obtained from file extent type item, line 1121)
>
yep, that's the same in my source

> It would be interesting what's the value of 'extent_type' at the time of
> crash, if it's eg -1 that could point to a real bug, some unhandled
> corner case in truncate, for example.
>

How can I do that?


>> [28997.507960] Call Trace:
>> [28997.507960]  [<ffffffffa00903e0>] ? acls_after_inode_item+0xc0/0xc0 [btrfs]
>
> ... a corruption caused by overflow of xattrs/acls into inode item bytes?
>
> As ceph stresses xattrs very well, I wouldn't be surprised by that.
>
>
> david