e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Nikola Ciprich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 653 bytes --]

Hi,

trying to compile latest e2fsprogs and running check under RHEL6-compatible
distro (centos) fails:

r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
r_ext4_small_bg: ext4 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed

dunno whether this is known issue... will bisect help?

with regards

nik

-- 
-------------------------------------
Ing. Nikola CIPRICH
LinuxBox.cz, s.r.o.
28.rijna 168, 709 00 Ostrava

tel.:   +420 591 166 214
fax:    +420 596 621 273
mobil:  +420 777 093 799
www.linuxbox.cz

mobil servis: +420 737 238 656
email servis: servis@linuxbox.cz
-------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:39:41AM +0200, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> 
> trying to compile latest e2fsprogs and running check under RHEL6-compatible
> distro (centos) fails:
> 
> r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> r_ext4_small_bg: ext4 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> 
> dunno whether this is known issue... will bisect help?

What platform are you running this on?  X86?  I generally do a full
regression test run before I do an e2fsprogs release, so it may very
well be something which might be platform or compiler specific.

Can you send me the r_1024_small_bg.failed and r_ext4_small_bg.failed
files?

Thanks,

						- Ted

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Nikola Ciprich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1130 bytes --]

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:40:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> What platform are you running this on?  X86?  I generally do a full
> regression test run before I do an e2fsprogs release, so it may very
> well be something which might be platform or compiler specific.

it's x86_64 running kernel 3.0.88-rc1. I also tried x86_64 centos 5, and
different test fails (I was successfully compiling previous releases on those
boxes).

> 
> Can you send me the r_1024_small_bg.failed and r_ext4_small_bg.failed
> files?
sure, although both those files are empty.. I've uploaded test logs (including
rhel5 failed one) here:

http://nik.lbox.cz/download/e2fsprogs-tests/

please let me know if I could provide more information

BR

nik



> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 						- Ted
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------
Ing. Nikola CIPRICH
LinuxBox.cz, s.r.o.
28. rijna 168, 709 00 Ostrava

tel.:   +420 591 166 214
fax:    +420 596 621 273
mobil:  +420 777 093 799

www.linuxbox.cz

mobil servis: +420 737 238 656
email servis: servis@linuxbox.cz
-------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Eric Sandeen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/29/13 3:39 AM, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> trying to compile latest e2fsprogs and running check under RHEL6-compatible
> distro (centos) fails:
> 
> r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> r_ext4_small_bg: ext4 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> 
> dunno whether this is known issue... will bisect help?
> 
> with regards
> 
> nik
> 

Ted, these are the same ones I saw, plus one I think (working on getting
all the info).

I don't think it's a regression, because:

commit e79a9395b382e831c125d000d2bf16ba4b6253d4
Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Date:   Sun Mar 31 20:34:24 2013 -0400

    tests: add more tests for off-line resizing

and:

$ git describe --contains e79a9395b382e831c125d000d2bf16ba4b6253d4
v1.42.8~31

the tests were only added in the last release.  Running the same tests
on older releases most likely breaks as well.

- -Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=G+1+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:13:42AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> Ted, these are the same ones I saw, plus one I think (working on getting
> all the info).
> 
> I don't think it's a regression, because:
> 
> commit e79a9395b382e831c125d000d2bf16ba4b6253d4
> Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> Date:   Sun Mar 31 20:34:24 2013 -0400
> 
>     tests: add more tests for off-line resizing
> 
> and:
> 
> $ git describe --contains e79a9395b382e831c125d000d2bf16ba4b6253d4
> v1.42.8~31
> 
> the tests were only added in the last release.  Running the same tests
> on older releases most likely breaks as well.

Well, they would almost certainly break on older releases because of
bugs due to bugs that were fixed in 1.42.8.  :-)

Let me be more precise; these tests aren't failing for me when I run
build and run "make check" on pristine 1.42.8 version of e2fsprogs on
Debian Stable.  So it's likely that the test is doing something that
is specific to Red Hat systems.  It may stil be turning up a bug that
for some reason we're not seeing on Debian systems.  

We are using the e2fsck binary built in the tree as the source of test
bits for the resize test.  I'm guessing that it is substantially
smaller or bigger when built on Red Hat systems?!?

Could you modify tests/script/resize to capture a copy of the
constructed file system before we start running resize2fs on it so I
can try reproducing it on my end?

					- Ted

P.S.  Hmm, for some reason the size of the e2fsck binary must be
*substantially* smaller on Red Hat systems.  What configure options
are you using?

Looking at my log, it shrinks the file system to:

r_1024_small_bg.log:The filesystem on /tmp/e2fsprogs-tmp.RE74xl is now 1341 blocks long.

and then

r_1024_small_bg.log:The filesystem on /tmp/e2fsprogs-tmp.RE74xl is now 1215 blocks long.

On your log, it shrinks the filesystem to 1191 blocks and then 1111 blocks.

On my system with default configure options, the size of the e2fsck
binary is 1124k.  It sounds like the size of your compiled e2fsck
binary is approximately 100k smaller?

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Eric Sandeen]

On 7/29/13 11:38 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:13:42AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>> Ted, these are the same ones I saw, plus one I think (working on getting
>> all the info).
>>
>> I don't think it's a regression, because:
>>
>> commit e79a9395b382e831c125d000d2bf16ba4b6253d4
>> Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
>> Date:   Sun Mar 31 20:34:24 2013 -0400
>>
>>     tests: add more tests for off-line resizing
>>
>> and:
>>
>> $ git describe --contains e79a9395b382e831c125d000d2bf16ba4b6253d4
>> v1.42.8~31
>>
>> the tests were only added in the last release.  Running the same tests
>> on older releases most likely breaks as well.
> 
> Well, they would almost certainly break on older releases because of
> bugs due to bugs that were fixed in 1.42.8.  :-)

...or not ;)

> Let me be more precise; these tests aren't failing for me when I run
> build and run "make check" on pristine 1.42.8 version of e2fsprogs on
> Debian Stable.  So it's likely that the test is doing something that
> is specific to Red Hat systems.  It may stil be turning up a bug that
> for some reason we're not seeing on Debian systems.  
> 
> We are using the e2fsck binary built in the tree as the source of test
> bits for the resize test.  I'm guessing that it is substantially
> smaller or bigger when built on Red Hat systems?!?

Something along those lines.

> Could you modify tests/script/resize to capture a copy of the
> constructed file system before we start running resize2fs on it so I
> can try reproducing it on my end?

Yes, getting to it ...

> 					- Ted
> 
> P.S.  Hmm, for some reason the size of the e2fsck binary must be
> *substantially* smaller on Red Hat systems.  What configure options
> are you using?

oh we just symlink it to /bin/true ;)  (KIDDING)

Hm, it's currently this in the specfile:

%configure --enable-elf-shlibs --enable-nls --disable-uuidd --disable-fsck \
           --disable-e2initrd-helper --disable-libblkid --disable-libuuid \
           --with-root-prefix=/usr

and %configure pulls in other stuff as well - let's see, here's the full cmdline:

+ ./configure --build=s390x-redhat-linux-gnu --host=s390x-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib64 --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-elf-shlibs --enable-nls --disable-uuidd --disable-fsck --disable-e2initrd-helper --disable-libblkid --disable-libuuid --with-root-prefix=/usr

(!)

-Eric

> Looking at my log, it shrinks the file system to:
> 
> r_1024_small_bg.log:The filesystem on /tmp/e2fsprogs-tmp.RE74xl is now 1341 blocks long.
> 
> and then
> 
> r_1024_small_bg.log:The filesystem on /tmp/e2fsprogs-tmp.RE74xl is now 1215 blocks long.
> 
> On your log, it shrinks the filesystem to 1191 blocks and then 1111 blocks.
> 
> On my system with default configure options, the size of the e2fsck
> binary is 1124k.  It sounds like the size of your compiled e2fsck
> binary is approximately 100k smaller?
> 

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Eric Sandeen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/30/13 9:03 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 7/29/13 11:13 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 7/29/13 3:39 AM, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
>>> Hi,
> 
>>> trying to compile latest e2fsprogs and running check under RHEL6-compatible
>>> distro (centos) fails:
> 
>>> r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
>>> r_ext4_small_bg: ext4 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> 
>>> dunno whether this is known issue... will bisect help?
> 
>>> with regards
> 
>>> nik
> 
> 
>> Ted, these are the same ones I saw, plus one I think (working on getting
>> all the info).
> 
> Sorry this took a while.  Attached is a qcow image of a broken r_1024_small_bg
> filesystem.  Doing resize2fs -M on it twice should corrupt it, even on x86_64.

Sorry - the image as attached is not broken, but 2 current resize2fs -M's break it.

- -Eric

> (aside: the test is a bit weird, it does:
> 
> echo $RESIZE2FS $RESIZE2FS_OPTS -d 31 -M $TMPFILE $SIZE_2 >> $LOG 2>&1
> 
> but specifying -M as well as a size doesn't make much sense?)
> 
> -Eric
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=96jm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Nikola Ciprich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3325 bytes --]

Hello Eric,

I'm very sorry for such a late reply, I was a bit busy with other
projects.. Well, I don't really understand what I should do with the
images now :) But if I understand previous discussion well, my problem
is not caused by code regressions, but new tests which were added
to this new version right? The problems failed tests report are related
to filesystems with 1K block size, so unless I use such filesystems,
I'm safe to skip tests and use this new version, especially since I've
been using 1.42.7 till now, right?

Or is there some git commit fixing those issues I should try?

Thanks a lot for Your time and sorry about my lame questions..

with best regards

nikola ciprich


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:10:53PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 7/30/13 9:03 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 7/29/13 11:13 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 7/29/13 3:39 AM, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> > 
> >>> trying to compile latest e2fsprogs and running check under RHEL6-compatible
> >>> distro (centos) fails:
> > 
> >>> r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> >>> r_ext4_small_bg: ext4 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> > 
> >>> dunno whether this is known issue... will bisect help?
> > 
> >>> with regards
> > 
> >>> nik
> > 
> > 
> >> Ted, these are the same ones I saw, plus one I think (working on getting
> >> all the info).
> > 
> > Sorry this took a while.  Attached is a qcow image of a broken r_1024_small_bg
> > filesystem.  Doing resize2fs -M on it twice should corrupt it, even on x86_64.
> 
> Sorry - the image as attached is not broken, but 2 current resize2fs -M's break it.
> 
> - -Eric
> 
> > (aside: the test is a bit weird, it does:
> > 
> > echo $RESIZE2FS $RESIZE2FS_OPTS -d 31 -M $TMPFILE $SIZE_2 >> $LOG 2>&1
> > 
> > but specifying -M as well as a size doesn't make much sense?)
> > 
> > -Eric
> > 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR+HIsAAoJECCuFpLhPd7gT3cP/3YLhpclAhU6UHIW4cqyKhIl
> STIwV3ROZmic5qQb8X6l5etc8ALCs2b5LVYjhlMlZWISkN64pXOhL0lz7coSABM9
> wnZU2y3LntcyGFEg7aEs+sXe2mXqX139NkoNwKfBBPidQ/HdwpnnTdlu4FZeTyrj
> aDHIUGPs2YBbp2QaBhmzl5b7xwEoHCq/XtrH7v7+SHyHEGzIYTn3w96vyXqVYTjs
> csUgeMhFFw58Hq+/03UE13Ig/Et8AqSgonnaEiG3ZKXsDIxhjFxqQPGsdD2BleGd
> Rb/fxnkM0RKhr7xSK3CFWnLQ8LkaUtexazxvr+7BmmgRx8jyQhQj8ASYXzmUuh/S
> RtbnZ3wioxEwCRhr3FP0ZpoOZwbkDWd/UBy407ZBblxVafjLSYbsMHDM7rPrQHoz
> oSo1W4c7sy85pNfCgMnQYyuqik5KVDuQNk/nqEkv6tE1YOb5zXTrpDKjEFgBKYVd
> FpLRk9f0rhoxcwyfZsIY6Wx/4h4rWKnhK6jqL5unDLJitPv405KlNfY28AoFNme4
> ZxwDSddausNm+8u9sZON7cuyhAb70Q8N0W6ECPX8+ie8fvXwPDRSJYPpMXqOBK06
> 35SPqxKlCpT7BGMAqr7+h8qemYdcTS0z7ag2im+MRS1t58AFSsuIyj+IirPWwTUM
> SQRtuG3mOsWE7l93c8bc
> =96jm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------
Ing. Nikola CIPRICH
LinuxBox.cz, s.r.o.
28.rijna 168, 709 00 Ostrava

tel.:   +420 591 166 214
fax:    +420 596 621 273
mobil:  +420 777 093 799
www.linuxbox.cz

mobil servis: +420 737 238 656
email servis: servis@linuxbox.cz
-------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

[Eric Sandeen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/4/13 3:04 AM, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> 
> I'm very sorry for such a late reply, I was a bit busy with other
> projects.. Well, I don't really understand what I should do with the
> images now :) But if I understand previous discussion well, my problem
> is not caused by code regressions, but new tests which were added
> to this new version right? The problems failed tests report are related
> to filesystems with 1K block size, so unless I use such filesystems,
> I'm safe to skip tests and use this new version, especially since I've
> been using 1.42.7 till now, right?
> 
> Or is there some git commit fixing those issues I should try?
> 
> Thanks a lot for Your time and sorry about my lame questions..

Nah, not lame.  To be honest, I've lost track of which resize2fs
bugs are fixed and which are not; some have been sent to the list,
some have not been fixed, and the e2fsprogs git tree hasn't been updated
for over 2 months.  So I'm really not sure where things stand right now.  :(

In any case, I don't _think_ that this particular bug is yet fixed.

- -Eric

> with best regards
> 
> nikola ciprich
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:10:53PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 7/30/13 9:03 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/13 11:13 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>>> On 7/29/13 3:39 AM, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>>> trying to compile latest e2fsprogs and running check under RHEL6-compatible
>>>>>> distro (centos) fails:
>>>>
>>>>>> r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
>>>>>> r_ext4_small_bg: ext4 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
>>>>
>>>>>> dunno whether this is known issue... will bisect help?
>>>>
>>>>>> with regards
>>>>
>>>>>> nik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ted, these are the same ones I saw, plus one I think (working on getting
>>>>> all the info).
>>>>
>>>> Sorry this took a while.  Attached is a qcow image of a broken r_1024_small_bg
>>>> filesystem.  Doing resize2fs -M on it twice should corrupt it, even on x86_64.
> 
> Sorry - the image as attached is not broken, but 2 current resize2fs -M's break it.
> 
> -Eric
> 
>>>> (aside: the test is a bit weird, it does:
>>>>
>>>> echo $RESIZE2FS $RESIZE2FS_OPTS -d 31 -M $TMPFILE $SIZE_2 >> $LOG 2>&1
>>>>
>>>> but specifying -M as well as a size doesn't make much sense?)
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
> 
>>
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=AQPh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----