* xfs_db problem
@ 2009-01-07 14:34 aluno
2009-01-07 14:43 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: aluno @ 2009-01-07 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
Hello,
Recently we've noticed that xfs_admin (xfs_db ver. 2.10.2) causes
segfault or FP traps while trying
to use following command on FAT partition:
# xfs_admin -u /dev/sda1
xfs_admin: unexpected XFS SB magic number 0xeb58906d
Floating point exception
and then makes error in dmesg:
xfs_db[10385] trap divide error ip:80b32b0 sp:fffbd900 error:0 in
xfs_db[8048000+7f000]
We know that xfs_admin is dedicated tool for XFS only not for FAT or
other filesystems,
but we would like to have xfs_db which will be able to cope with non-xfs
filesystems also.
After some investigations we've found some place and put there exit(1) -
in xfsprogs-2.10.2/db/init.c
in init() procedure:
(...)
sbp = &xmount.m_sb;
if (sbp->sb_magicnum != XFS_SB_MAGIC) {
fprintf(stderr, _("%s: unexpected XFS SB magic number
0x%08x\n"),
progname, sbp->sb_magicnum);
exit(1);
}
(...)
Is it the right way to fix this problem?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* xfs_db problem
@ 2009-01-07 14:37 aluno3
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: aluno3 @ 2009-01-07 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
Hello,
Recently we've noticed that xfs_admin (xfs_db ver. 2.10.2) causes
segfault or FP traps while trying
to use following command on FAT partition:
# xfs_admin -u /dev/sda1
xfs_admin: unexpected XFS SB magic number 0xeb58906d
Floating point exception
and then makes error in dmesg:
xfs_db[10385] trap divide error ip:80b32b0 sp:fffbd900 error:0 in
xfs_db[8048000+7f000]
We know that xfs_admin is dedicated tool for XFS only not for FAT or
other filesystems,
but we would like to have xfs_db which will be able to cope with non-xfs
filesystems also.
After some investigations we've found some place and put there exit(1) -
in xfsprogs-2.10.2/db/init.c
in init() procedure:
(...)
sbp = &xmount.m_sb;
if (sbp->sb_magicnum != XFS_SB_MAGIC) {
fprintf(stderr, _("%s: unexpected XFS SB magic number
0x%08x\n"),
progname, sbp->sb_magicnum);
exit(1);
}
(...)
Is it the right way to fix this problem?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs_db problem
2009-01-07 14:34 xfs_db problem aluno
@ 2009-01-07 14:43 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-01-07 17:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2009-01-07 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: aluno; +Cc: xfs
aluno wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Recently we've noticed that xfs_admin (xfs_db ver. 2.10.2) causes
> segfault or FP traps while trying
> to use following command on FAT partition:
>
> # xfs_admin -u /dev/sda1
> xfs_admin: unexpected XFS SB magic number 0xeb58906d
> Floating point exception
>
> and then makes error in dmesg:
>
> xfs_db[10385] trap divide error ip:80b32b0 sp:fffbd900 error:0 in
> xfs_db[8048000+7f000]
>
> We know that xfs_admin is dedicated tool for XFS only not for FAT or
> other filesystems,
> but we would like to have xfs_db which will be able to cope with non-xfs
> filesystems also.
>
> After some investigations we've found some place and put there exit(1) -
> in xfsprogs-2.10.2/db/init.c
>
> in init() procedure:
>
> (...)
> sbp = &xmount.m_sb;
> if (sbp->sb_magicnum != XFS_SB_MAGIC) {
> fprintf(stderr, _("%s: unexpected XFS SB magic number
> 0x%08x\n"),
> progname, sbp->sb_magicnum);
> exit(1);
> }
> (...)
>
>
>
> Is it the right way to fix this problem?
The thing is, xfs_db could in theory be used to *fix* the bad magic
number, so refusing to continue might be a problem. But perhaps when
invoked as xfs_admin, it should just bail out. It would be interesting
to find where the actual failure is, though...
FWIW, I see a slightly different failure on a 128M vfat fs:
[root@host tmp]# file fsfile
fsfile: x86 boot sector, mkdosfs boot message display
[root@host tmp]# xfs_admin -u fsfile
xfs_admin: unexpected XFS SB magic number 0xeb3c906d
xfs_admin: size check failed
xfs_admin: failed to alloc 20875030464 bytes: Cannot allocate memory
It probably depends on the details of the (non-xfs) filesystem it's
pointed at.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs_db problem
2009-01-07 14:43 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2009-01-07 17:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2009-01-07 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: aluno, xfs
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 08:43:10AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The thing is, xfs_db could in theory be used to *fix* the bad magic
> number, so refusing to continue might be a problem. But perhaps when
> invoked as xfs_admin, it should just bail out. It would be interesting
> to find where the actual failure is, though...
We have bugzilla open for this, too. I think it's reasonable to
get a warning, but not the additional problems when calling xfs_db
directly because that's a low-level tool for people that know what
they do.
But when called through wrappers like xfs_admin we should first do
the magic number check. I think the proper way to implement this
is to add an option to xfs_db to perform the magic number check,
and make sure all the wrapper scripts set it, similar to how they
already use -p <progname>.
Any volunteer to implement this? It should be fairly simple.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-01-07 17:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-01-07 14:34 xfs_db problem aluno
2009-01-07 14:43 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-01-07 17:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-01-07 14:37 aluno3
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox