From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CA829E08 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:59:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB0F304043 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id K5ryCkMnF2YX40TL for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:59:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:59:26 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: xfs resize: primary superblock is not updated immediately Message-ID: <20160223225926.GN25832@dastard> References: <3685DFAD20214109878873CF81232704@alyakaslap> <20160222212019.GI25832@dastard> <20160222235628.GK25832@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Lyakas Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Danny Shavit , Shyam Kaushik , Yair Hershko , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 02:25:38PM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Below is a detailed reproduction scenario of the problem. Can you package this for xfstests and send to fstests@vger.kernel.org, please? > No > snapshots involved, only XFS. The scenario is performed on a VM, > running kernel 3.18.19. And a current kernel (e.g. 4.5-rc5) behaves how? > 9) mount > # mount -o sync /dev/mapper/xfs_base /mnt/xfs/ > > Kernel panics with [2]. It tried to read a buffer beyond the current end of filesystem that log recoery knows about. Given the on-disk superblock had not been updated by the growfs operation, this should have been detected by _xfs_buf_find() and errored out, not tried to look up a per-ag structure that is beyond the current end of filesystem. i.e. the code I pointed out in my previous email failed to detect the situation is it supposed to be protecting against. Why did that "block beyond the end of the filesystem" detection fail? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs