From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D031DC433EF for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230450AbiGEQy2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2022 12:54:28 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47810 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229989AbiGEQy2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2022 12:54:28 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D8AA13CC2 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 09:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CACCEB817EE for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81331C341CA; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:54:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1657040064; bh=sgyi1khZcgipCdvc7BpBxCx5fMVnxwICwZkvO/BjhM0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=i3ol30cx4cG2ZLFdDaoRFmwkF0L2OOOf3jaOBhq3/ASAAwwmA7RO5Z8zg8AVzA1// Tvimbv+Zk3wEmTpWq57Ms4gvcV1W5jgPAlOWBl3CaPW3dmbg7o02njn7ptk0UNb/fW T745lRA5nk51eRLZlhC0HRlIHupDfiUpudZ1lkFYoACtsKVUFAMw8eljllv2IADCur xJPjoITbeBbgByEn3irTOjihgr5sSqWGRFcKKuGT17zTNTDVrXysJnjXI/R0whiqx4 TIJaPO1LtNlYtRQYzv16eox8TmgD19V7FkZstN84TeK8hK++Ue9sdRQ14tTuVkQ/9e nev5hR55XqWKQ== Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 09:54:23 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Dave Chinner Cc: Srikanth C S , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@oracle.com, junxiao.bi@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mkfs: custom agcount that renders AG size < XFS_AG_MIN_BYTES gives "Assertion failed. Aborted" Message-ID: References: <20220705031958.407-1-srikanth.c.s@oracle.com> <20220705035536.GE227878@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220705035536.GE227878@dread.disaster.area> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 01:55:36PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 08:49:58AM +0530, Srikanth C S wrote: > > For a 2GB FS we have > > $ mkfs.xfs -f -d agcount=129 test.img > > mkfs.xfs: xfs_mkfs.c:3021: align_ag_geometry: Assertion `!cli_opt_set(&dopts, D_AGCOUNT)' failed. > > Aborted > > Ok, that's because the size of the last AG is too small when trying > to align the AG size to stripe geometry. It fails an assert that > says "we should not get here if the agcount was specified on the > CLI". > > > > > With this change we have > > $ mkfs.xfs -f -d agcount=129 test.img > > Invalid value 129 for -d agcount option. Value is too large. What version of mkfs is this? $ truncate -s 2g /tmp/a $ mkfs.xfs -V mkfs.xfs version 5.18.0 $ mkfs.xfs -f -d agcount=129 /tmp/a agsize (4065 blocks) too small, need at least 4096 blocks > OK, but.... > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srikanth C S > > --- > > mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > > index 057b3b09..32dcbfff 100644 > > --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > > +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > > @@ -2897,6 +2897,13 @@ _("agsize (%s) not a multiple of fs blk size (%d)\n"), > > cfg->agcount = cli->agcount; > > cfg->agsize = cfg->dblocks / cfg->agcount + > > (cfg->dblocks % cfg->agcount != 0); > > + if (cfg->agsize < XFS_AG_MIN_BYTES >> cfg->blocklog) > > + { > > + fprintf(stderr, > > +_("Invalid value %lld for -d agcount option. Value is too large.\n"), > > + (long long)cli->agcount); > > + usage(); > > + } > > .... that's not where we validate the calculated ag size. That > happens via align_ag_geometry() -> validate_ag_geometry(). i.e. we > can't reject an AG specification until after we've applied all the > necessary modifiers to it first (such as stripe alignment > requirements). > > IOWs, we do actually check for valid AG sizes, it's just that this > specific case hit an ASSERT() check before we got to validating the > AG size. I'm pretty sure just removing the ASSERT - which assumes > that "-d agcount=xxx" is not so large that it produces undersized > AGs - will fix the problem and result in the correct error message > being returned. (Agreed.) --D > Cheers, > > Dave. > > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com