From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: ext4 wrote extents on ext2 fs? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:38:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1420846715.9731.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <1420841908.7511.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20150109233009.GB31554@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:49411 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754855AbbAIXii (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:38:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20150109233009.GB31554@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 18:30 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > What I suspect happened is that some kind of garbage --- perhaps > simply a single 4k block of 0xFF's --- got written into the inode > table. This would trigger this sort of complaint from e2fsck. Ok, makes sense. It's a USB flash drive, so perhaps it just messed up with its FTL and showed a deleted block in place of the real one. > > Perhaps this is just a consequence of check ordering though - maybe if > > the inode flags get corrupted then the EXTENTS flag is just the first > > one that will be tested in the e2fsck code? > > Yes, this is one of the first things that e2fsck 1.42.x would test > for. Thanks for the confirmation. Thanks, johannes