it seems at XFS bug?!

it seems at XFS bug?!

[oliver pinter]

pancs:~/kernel# ll
total 460
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root      0 2007-05-19 19:36
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root    259 2007-05-06 13:14 lspc.sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  92184 2007-05-06 13:06 mypc.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  91058 2007-05-06 12:42 pc.tct
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  93834 2007-05-06 12:58 pc.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 182116 2007-05-06 12:39 tet
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root      0 2007-05-06 12:41

the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.

I have several times booting and using the 2.6.21-git1 .. 2.6.22-rc2 kernels.
And now I use   2.6.21.1.

This error have yet others to happen.

(sorry for the bad spelling, I not learned  english)

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Michal Piotrowski]

[Adding xfs-masters to CC]

On 19/05/07, oliver pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> wrote:
> pancs:~/kernel# ll
> total 460
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root      0 2007-05-19 19:36
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root    259 2007-05-06 13:14 lspc.sh
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  92184 2007-05-06 13:06 mypc.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  91058 2007-05-06 12:42 pc.tct
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  93834 2007-05-06 12:58 pc.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 182116 2007-05-06 12:39 tet
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root      0 2007-05-06 12:41
>
> the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.
>
> I have several times booting and using the 2.6.21-git1 .. 2.6.22-rc2 kernels.
> And now I use   2.6.21.1.
>
> This error have yet others to happen.
>
> (sorry for the bad spelling, I not learned  english)
> -

Regards,
Michal

-- 
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
Kernel Monkeys
(http://kernel.wikidot.com/start)

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <6101e8c40705191046t29cdad68oe4e613b6c71deb93@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root      0 2007-05-06 12:41
> 
> the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.

Well, 0 byte files are nothing special, and the name: it might be a non-printable char?

> touch ' '

will produce a similiar file. Try "ls -li | od -cx"

Greetings
Bernd

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[oliver pinter]

On 5/19/07, Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@lina.inka.de> wrote:
> In article <6101e8c40705191046t29cdad68oe4e613b6c71deb93@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root      0 2007-05-06 12:41
> >
> > the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.
>
> Well, 0 byte files are nothing special, and the name: it might be a non-printable char?
>
> > touch ' '
>
> will produce a similiar file. Try "ls -li | od -cx"
>

0000000   t   o   t   a   l       4   6   0  \n   8   6   1   2   5   5
        6f74 6174 206c 3634 0a30 3638 3231 3535
0000020   4       -   r   w   x   r   -   x   r   -   x       1       r
        2034 722d 7877 2d72 7278 782d 3120 7220
0000040   o   o   t       r   o   o   t                   2   5   9
        6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020 2020 3532 2039
0000060   2   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6       1   3   :   1   4
        3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630 3120 3a33 3431
0000100       l   s   p   c   .   s   h  \n   8   6   1   2   5   5   2
        6c20 7073 2e63 6873 380a 3136 3532 3235
0000120       -   r   w   -   r   -   -   r   -   -       1       r   o
        2d20 7772 722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72
0000140   o   t       r   o   o   t           9   2   1   8   4       2
        746f 7220 6f6f 2074 3920 3132 3438 3220
0000160   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6       1   3   :   0   6
        3030 2d37 3530 302d 2036 3331 303a 2036
0000200   m   y   p   c   .   t   x   t  \n   8   6   1   2   5   5   1
        796d 6370 742e 7478 380a 3136 3532 3135
0000220       -   r   w   -   r   -   -   r   -   -       1       r   o
        2d20 7772 722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72
0000240   o   t       r   o   o   t           9   1   0   5   8       2
        746f 7220 6f6f 2074 3920 3031 3835 3220
0000260   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6       1   2   :   4   2
        3030 2d37 3530 302d 2036 3231 343a 2032
0000300   p   c   .   t   c   t  \n   8   6   1   2   5   4   8       -
        6370 742e 7463 380a 3136 3532 3834 2d20
0000320   r   w   -   r   -   -   r   -   -       1       r   o   o   t
        7772 722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72 746f
0000340       r   o   o   t           9   3   8   3   4       2   0   0
        7220 6f6f 2074 3920 3833 3433 3220 3030
0000360   7   -   0   5   -   0   6       1   2   :   5   8       p   c
        2d37 3530 302d 2036 3231 353a 2038 6370
0000400   .   t   x   t  \n   8   6   1   2   5   5   0       -   r   w
        742e 7478 380a 3136 3532 3035 2d20 7772
0000420   -   r   -   -   r   -   -       1       r   o   o   t       r
        722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72 746f 7220
0000440   o   o   t       1   8   2   1   1   6       2   0   0   7   -
        6f6f 2074 3831 3132 3631 3220 3030 2d37
0000460   0   5   -   0   6       1   2   :   3   9       t   e   t  \n
        3530 302d 2036 3231 333a 2039 6574 0a74
0000500   8   6   1   2   5   4   9       -   r   w   -   r   -   -   r
        3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
0000520   -   -       1       r   o   o   t       r   o   o   t
        2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
0000540                   0       2   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6
        2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
0000560       1   2   :   4   1          \n  \0
        3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
0000571

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <6101e8c40705191117h40c8af70sfc9d0617a99a248b@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 0000500   8   6   1   2   5   4   9       -   r   w   -   r   -   -   r
>        3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> 0000520   -   -       1       r   o   o   t       r   o   o   t
>        2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> 0000540                   0       2   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6
>        2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> 0000560       1   2   :   4   1          \n  \0
>        3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> 0000571

That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)

Gruss
Bernd

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:14:10PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <6101e8c40705191117h40c8af70sfc9d0617a99a248b@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > 0000500   8   6   1   2   5   4   9       -   r   w   -   r   -   -   r
> >        3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> > 0000520   -   -       1       r   o   o   t       r   o   o   t
> >        2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> > 0000540                   0       2   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6
> >        2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> > 0000560       1   2   :   4   1          \n  \0
> >        3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> > 0000571
> 
> That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
> bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)

No, look closer above, its name is the single-character '\xa0'. It's
this output format which makes the analysis difficult. And it's also
'od' which has added '\0' to pad its 16 bit buffer. I tend to prefer
to use 'od -tx1' or 'od -ctx1' here.

I would suggest doing 'rm -i ?' to remove that file, or rm -i $'\xa0'
for the paranoid.

Willy

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[oliver pinter]

other dir's ls see I zero \0

On 5/19/07, Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@lina.inka.de> wrote:
> In article <6101e8c40705191117h40c8af70sfc9d0617a99a248b@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > 0000500   8   6   1   2   5   4   9       -   r   w   -   r   -   -   r
> >        3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> > 0000520   -   -       1       r   o   o   t       r   o   o   t
> >        2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> > 0000540                   0       2   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6
> >        2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> > 0000560       1   2   :   4   1          \n  \0
> >        3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> > 0000571
>
> That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
> bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Willy Tarreau]

[resending since I just noticed that Bern trimmed the CC list]

On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:14:10PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <6101e8c40705191117h40c8af70sfc9d0617a99a248b@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > 0000500   8   6   1   2   5   4   9       -   r   w   -   r   -   -   r
> >        3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> > 0000520   -   -       1       r   o   o   t       r   o   o   t
> >        2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> > 0000540                   0       2   0   0   7   -   0   5   -   0   6
> >        2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> > 0000560       1   2   :   4   1          \n  \0
> >        3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> > 0000571
> 
> That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
> bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)

No, look closer above, its name is the single-character '\xa0'. It's
this output format which makes the analysis difficult. And it's also
'od' which has added '\0' to pad its 16 bit buffer. I tend to prefer
to use 'od -tx1' or 'od -ctx1' here.

I would suggest doing 'rm -i ?' to remove that file, or rm -i $'\xa0'
for the paranoid.

Willy

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[oliver pinter]

with rm -i $'\xa0' command, have I removed the file

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[oliver pinter]

yeah, but how produziert?

On 5/19/07, oliver pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> wrote:
> with rm -i $'\xa0' command, have I removed the file
>

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
> yeah, but how produziert?

I *think* it is the unbreakable space. Maybe you can enter it on
your keyboard using AltGr-spacebar or something like this. If this
is the case, it's possible that you got it right after a '>' during
a command like below :

   # foo >_ bar

with this character instead of the '_' above.

Regards,
Willy

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Jan Engelhardt]

On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>> yeah, but how produziert?
>
>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.

\xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)

>Maybe you can enter it on
>your keyboard using AltGr-spacebar or something like this. If this
>is the case, it's possible that you got it right after a '>' during
>a command like below :

perl -e 'open F,">\xa0"';



	Jan
-- 

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Andreas Schwab]

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> writes:

> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>>> yeah, but how produziert?
>>
>>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
>
> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)

Actually, in a utf-8 environment you see it much better.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:39:33AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
> >> yeah, but how produziert?
> >
> >I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
> 
> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)

An even better reason is to be in ISO-8859 :-)

Willy

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Jan Engelhardt]

On May 20 2007 11:14, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> writes:
>> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>>>> yeah, but how produziert?
>>>
>>>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
>>
>> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
>> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)
>
>Actually, in a utf-8 environment you see it much better.

But only if invalid sequences are replaced by a question mark or whatever,
which is not the case in xterm.


	Jan
-- 

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

[Andreas Schwab]

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> writes:

> On May 20 2007 11:14, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> writes:
>>> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>>>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>>>>> yeah, but how produziert?
>>>>
>>>>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
>>>
>>> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
>>> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)
>>
>>Actually, in a utf-8 environment you see it much better.
>
> But only if invalid sequences are replaced by a question mark or whatever,
> which is not the case in xterm.

That depends on your font, I guess.  The font I use has a visible
replacement character.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."