Re: XFS: Assertion failed: first <= last && last < BBTOB(bp->b_length), file: fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c, line: 568

From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS: Assertion failed: first <= last && last < BBTOB(bp->b_length), file: fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c, line: 568
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:01:01 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5217A35D.1090609@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5217929F.5050008@redhat.com>

On 08/23/13 11:49, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 08/23/2013 09:57 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> On 08/23/13 08:30, Brian Foster wrote:
>>> On 08/23/2013 09:18 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>>> On 08/22/13 13:28, Brian Foster wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hit an assert on a debug kernel while beating on some finobt work and
>>>>> eventually reproduced it on unmodified/TOT xfs/xfsprogs as of today. I
>>>>> hit it through a couple different paths, first while running
>>>>> fsstress on
>>>>> a CRC enabled filesystem (with otherwise default mkfs options):
>>>>>
>>>>> (These tests are running on a 4p, 4GB VM against a 100GB virtio disk,
>>>>> hosted on a single spindle desktop box).
>>>>
>>>> Eeek.
>>>>
>>>> So both crashes are directory related. What is the top XFS kernel commit
>>>> for these tests?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> It was the latest from at some point yesterday. I don't think I've
>>> pulled since, so I'm at:
>>>
>>> 3e3c51ce xfs: add xfs sb v4 support for dirent filetype field
>>>
>>>> Have you seen this on earlier versions of the kernel?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well I hit an issue first on my dev. branch for finobt hacking, which is
>>> currently based on a slightly older commit:
>>>
>>> 2c2bcc07 xfs: call roundup_64() to calculate the min_logblks
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I don't have the precise error/stack from that failure on
>>> hand to double check whether it's the exact same failure. I can try to
>>> regenerate it a bit later today.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --Mark.
>>>
>> Good, I just want to make sure the common directory mods for the file
>> type patch was not the cause. I will try to recreate it too.
>>
>
> And just to confirm, I can hit the assert from both tests on a 2c2bcc07
> kernel (pre-dirent ftype change).
>
> Brian

Suspected as much, but thank-you for the confirmation.

I guess the next bi-section would be Linux 3.11 to make sure the 
user/kernel sync did not introduce anything. I thought those moves were 
clean.

I will shut up and try to help bisect.

--Mark.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs