Skip to contentSkip to conversation

filesystem bug?

DISCUSSION Tsuchiya Yoshihiro 2 participants 6 messages Jan 16, 2004 – Jan 20, 2004

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

Hi Stephen,

Quoted 3 lines

Now, I can't tell from this whether it's a bash bug or an exit/signal bug, but it doesn't look like a filesystem problem for now. I'm going to try with a different shell to see if that helps.

I tried with /bin/zsh, and it seems you are right. The script is working fine for about 2 hours.

So I will try to find out about EIO(inode corruption) problem next.

Thank you so much,

Yoshi

Signature · 2 lines
--
Yoshihiro Tsuchiya
#1 lore raw

Hi,

Quoted 2 lines · Tsuchiya Yoshihiro

I tried with /bin/zsh, and it seems you are right. The script is working fine for about 2 hours.

Thank you for checking.

Quoted 1 line

So I will try to find out about EIO(inode corruption) problem next.

OK. Under exactly what circumstances have you seen this in the past, as opposed to the other problem? I have not been able to reproduce this one so far.

Cheers,
Stephen

#2 lore raw

Hello,

Quoted 5 lines · Stephen C. Tweedie

OK. Under exactly what circumstances have you seen this in the past, as opposed to the other problem? I have not been able to reproduce this one so far.

The combinations of kernel versions and filesystem types are:
2.4.20-8 ext2
2.4.20-19.9 ext2, ext3
2.4.20-24.9 ext2
2.4.20-28.9 ext2

I do the test with mozilla-1.3.tar.gz and 6 processes in the script, it happens with ext2 within a few hours.

I haven't seen the problem on 2.4.20,23 and 24.

So now I am testing followings:
2.4.24-pre2 ext2 (mozilla-1.3.tar.gz)
2.4.24 ext2 (nvi-1.79.tar.gz)
2.4.20 ext3 (mozilla-1.3.tar.gz)
2.4.23 ext3 (mozilla-1.3.tar.gz)
2.4.24 ext3 (mozilla-1.3.tar.gz)
2.4.20-28.9 ext3 (mozilla-1.3.tar.gz)

Other than 2.4.20-28.9, since they have been running for three days, they seems nice at this point.

What exactly is the race condition between read_inode() and clear_inode() you have
mentioned?

Thanks,
Yoshi

Signature · 2 lines
--
Yoshihiro Tsuchiya
#3 lore raw

Hi,

Quoted 10 lines · Tsuchiya Yoshihiro
Quoted 3 lines

OK. Under exactly what circumstances have you seen this in the past, as opposed to the other problem? I have not been able to reproduce this one so far.

Other than 2.4.20-28.9, since they have been running for three days, they seems nice at this point.

What exactly is the race condition between read_inode() and clear_inode() you have
mentioned?

This one:

http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/[email protected]

Cheers,
Stephen

#4 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Stephen C. Tweedie

Other than 2.4.20-28.9, since they have been running for three days,

Quoted 7 lines

they seems nice at this point.

What exactly is the race condition between read_inode() and clear_inode() you have
mentioned?

Quoted 5 lines

This one:

http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/[email protected]

Thank you. I think this one does not explain all of my problem.
1. the corrupted inode was still in the parent directory. It is strange because unlink removes the directory entry first and then iput deletes the inode.

2. some time, i_nlink was 0 and i_dtime was set which is I think somewhat related with this patch, but the other time, part of a inode block was cleaned with 0, which I do not understand how at all.

Thank you,
Yoshi

Signature · 2 lines
--
Yoshihiro Tsuchiya
#5 lore raw

Hi,

Quoted 6 lines · Tsuchiya Yoshihiro
Quoted 1 line

http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/[email protected]

2. some time, i_nlink was 0 and i_dtime was set which is I think somewhat related with this patch, but the other time, part of a inode block was cleaned with 0, which I do not understand how at all.

Yep. I'd really need to see exactly which kernel versions these specific problems reproduce on to take this much further, though. I'll be travelling for the next week and a half, but I'll look for more results once I'm back from that.

Thanks,
Stephen