lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:55:28 +0200
From:	Johan Harvyl <johan@...vyl.se>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: resize2fs: Should never happen: resize inode corrupt! - lost key
 inodes

I have now been able to reproduce the issue that resize2fs corrupts at 
least the root, resize and journal
inodes with versions 1.42.13 and the more recent commit 956b0f1 of 
e2fsprogs.

Note that older versions of e2fsprogs need *not* be involved, 1.42.13 
and newer also have issues.

Please advice on things I can try to narrow down the root cause of what 
has to be an e2fsprogs bug. In
particular it would be very useful to reproduce it faster, running 
through the mkfs and two resize steps
takes around ten minutes so iterative testing is a slow and I do not 
really have much of clue what steps
would be more likely to overwrite the inodes.

At some point I would like to return this array to service but I am not 
really comfortable creating a
new ext4 filesystem on it without first understanding how it can become 
corrupted without even
mounting the file system.

For 1.42.13:
# mkfs.ext4 /dev/md0 -i 262144 -m 0 -O 64bit 15627548672k
# resize2fs -p /dev/md0 19534435840k
# resize2fs -p /dev/md0
# e2fsck -fn /dev/md0
e2fsck 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
ext2fs_check_desc: Corrupt group descriptor: bad block for inode table
e2fsck: Group descriptors look bad... trying backup blocks...
Superblock has an invalid journal (inode 8).
Clear? no

e2fsck: Illegal inode number while checking ext3 journal for /dev/md0

/dev/md0: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors **********


or for 956b0f1:
# MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/elatest/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
/root/elatest/out/sbin/mkfs.ext4 /dev/md0 -i 262144 -m 0 -O 64bit 
15627548672k
# MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/elatest/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
/root/elatest/out/sbin/resize2fs -p /dev/md0 19534435840k
# MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/elatest/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
/root/elatest/out/sbin/resize2fs -p /dev/md0
# MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/elatest/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
/root/elatest/out/sbin/e2fsck -fn /dev/md0
e2fsck 1.43-WIP (18-May-2015)
ext2fs_open2: Superblock checksum does not match superblock
/root/elatest/out/sbin/e2fsck: Superblock invalid, trying backup blocks...
Superblock has an invalid journal (inode 8).
Clear? no

/root/elatest/out/sbin/e2fsck: Illegal inode number while checking ext3 
journal for /dev/md0

/dev/md0: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors **********

# MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/elatest/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
/root/elatest/out/sbin/debugfs -c /dev/md0
debugfs 1.43-WIP (18-May-2015)
/dev/md0: Superblock checksum does not match superblock while opening 
filesystem
debugfs:  stat <2>
stat: Filesystem not open

# debugfs -c /dev/md0
debugfs 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
/dev/md0: catastrophic mode - not reading inode or group bitmaps
debugfs:  stat <2>
Inode: 2   Type: bad type    Mode:  0004   Flags: 0x1
Generation: 1    Version: 0x00000001
User:  9440   Group:     0   Size: 618659860
File ACL: 1    Directory ACL: 0
Links: 0   Blockcount: 724107776
Fragment:  Address: 0    Number: 0    Size: 0
ctime: 0x02008000 -- Sun Jan 24 18:46:40 1971
atime: 0x24e000a0 -- Wed Aug  9 12:00:00 1989
mtime: 0x00030000 -- Sat Jan  3 07:36:48 1970
Size of extra inode fields: 6
BLOCKS:
(0):1, (6):618659845 .... and it goes on...

On 2015-09-14 23:35, Johan Harvyl wrote:
> In an attempt to further isolate what versions of e2fsprogs, at a 
> commit level, that are
> needed to reproduce the bad behavior I tried my own step-by-step, 
> initially with a much
> higher -i 16777216 to mkfs.ext4 in the hope that fewer inodes would 
> make all the
> operations run faster.
>
> When I was unable to reproduce with -i 16777216 instead, I switched 
> back to exactly
> what I reproduced with the first time, and I *still* did not get the 
> "Should never happen:
> resize inode corrupt!".
>
> The only reasonable explanation I can come up with to this is that 
> something is not being
> initialized properly that resize2fs expects to be initialized. I have 
> no indications of any
> issues with any hardware or the underlying md block.
>
> What I did however notice is that I can have the same kind of 
> filesystem corruption
> *without* seeing the "Should never happen: resize inode corrupt!" 
> message using the
> following sequence, and this *is* reproducible one time after another:
>
> # MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/e10/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
> /root/e10/out/sbin/mkfs.ext4 /dev/md0 -i 262144 -m 0 -O 64bit 
> 15627548672k
> # e2fsck -fy /dev/md0 (using 1.42.13)
> # resize2fs -p /dev/md0 19534435840k (using 1.42.13)
> # resize2fs -p /dev/md0 (using 1.42.13)
> # e2fsck -fn /dev/md0
> e2fsck 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
> ext2fs_check_desc: Corrupt group descriptor: bad block for inode table
> e2fsck: Group descriptors look bad... trying backup blocks...
> Superblock has an invalid journal (inode 8).
> Clear? no
>
> e2fsck: Illegal inode number while checking ext3 journal for /dev/md0
>
> At this point the root inode is also bad and this fails:
> # mount /dev/md0 /mnt/loop -o ro,noload
> mount: mount /dev/md0 on /mnt/loop failed: Stale file handle
> [3766493.732188] EXT4-fs (md0): get root inode failed
> [3766493.732190] EXT4-fs (md0): mount failed
>
> Note that only versions 1.42.10 and 1.42.13 are involved now, 1.42.12 
> is not needed.
>
> Kernel is the debian:
> ii  linux-image-4.0.0-2-amd64      4.0.8-2 amd64 Linux 4.0 for 64-bit PCs
>
> For the record I also tried a more recent e2fsprogs for the resize 
> (instead of 1.42.13),
> locally built from:
> 956b0f1 Merge branch 'maint' into next
> and I could still reproduce it on the first attempt.
>
> More verbose logs follows.
>
> Does anyone else have some kind of testbed to test the same sequence 
> of commands?
>
> ===
>
> # MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/e10/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
> /root/e10/out/sbin/mkfs.ext4 /dev/md0 -i 262144 -m 0 -O 64bit 
> 15627548672k
> mke2fs 1.42.10 (18-May-2014)
> /dev/md0 contains a ext4 file system
>         last mounted on Sun Sep 13 22:19:28 2015
> Proceed anyway? (y,n) y
> Creating filesystem with 3906887168 4k blocks and 61045248 inodes
> Filesystem UUID: e263356e-4fe4-4e9b-bd0c-8edc2c411735
> Superblock backups stored on blocks:
>         32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 
> 2654208,
>         4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 
> 78675968,
>         102400000, 214990848, 512000000, 550731776, 644972544, 
> 1934917632,
>         2560000000, 3855122432
>
> Allocating group tables: done
> Writing inode tables: done
> Creating journal (32768 blocks): done
> Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done
>
> # e2fsck -fy /dev/md0
> e2fsck 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
> Pass 5: Checking group summary information
> Free blocks count wrong (512088558484167, counted=3902749383).
> Fix? yes
>
>
> /dev/md0: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
> /dev/md0: 11/61045248 files (0.0% non-contiguous), 4137785/3906887168 
> blocks
>
> # resize2fs -p /dev/md0 19534435840k
> resize2fs 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
> Resizing the filesystem on /dev/md0 to 4883608960 (4k) blocks.
> Begin pass 2 (max = 6)
> Relocating blocks XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Begin pass 3 (max = 119229)
> Scanning inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Begin pass 5 (max = 8)
> Moving inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> The filesystem on /dev/md0 is now 4883608960 (4k) blocks long.
>
> # resize2fs -p /dev/md0
> resize2fs 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
> Resizing the filesystem on /dev/md0 to 5860330752 (4k) blocks.
> Begin pass 2 (max = 6)
> Relocating blocks XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Begin pass 3 (max = 149036)
> Scanning inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Begin pass 5 (max = 14)
> Moving inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> The filesystem on /dev/md0 is now 5860330752 (4k) blocks long.
>
> # e2fsck -fn /dev/md0
> e2fsck 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
> ext2fs_check_desc: Corrupt group descriptor: bad block for inode table
> e2fsck: Group descriptors look bad... trying backup blocks...
> Superblock has an invalid journal (inode 8).
> Clear? no
>
> e2fsck: Illegal inode number while checking ext3 journal for /dev/md0
>
> On 2015-09-12 12:27, Johan Harvyl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have now evacuated the data on the filesystem and I *did* manage to 
>> recreate the
>> "Should never happen: resize inode corrupt!" using the versions of 
>> e2fsprogs I believe I was using at the time.
>>
>> The vast majority of the data that I was able to checksum was ok.
>>
>> For me I guess the way forward should be to recreate the fs with 
>> 1.42.13 and stick to online resize
>> from now on, correct?
>>
>> Are there any feature flags that I should not use when expanding file 
>> systems or any that I must use?
>>
>> -johan
>>
>>
>> Here is a step by step of what I did to reproduce
>>
>> I have built the following two versions of e2fsprogs (configure, 
>> make, make install, nothing else):
>> 421d693 (HEAD) libext2fs: fix potential buffer overflow in closefs()
>> 6a3741a (tag: v1.42.12) Update release notes, etc. for final 1.42.12 
>> release
>>
>> 9779e29 (HEAD, tag: v1.42.10) Update release notes, etc. for final 
>> 1.42.10 release
>>
>> ===
>>
>> First build the fs with 1.42.10 with the exact number of blocks I 
>> originally had.
>>
>> # MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/e10/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
>> /root/e10/out/sbin/mkfs.ext4 /dev/md0 -i 262144 -m 0 -O 64bit 
>> 15627548672k
>> mke2fs 1.42.10 (18-May-2014)
>> /dev/md0 contains a ext4 file system
>>         created on Sat Sep 12 11:23:02 2015
>> Proceed anyway? (y,n) y
>> Creating filesystem with 3906887168 4k blocks and 61045248 inodes
>> Filesystem UUID: d00e9e59-3756-4e59-9539-bc00fe2446b5
>> Superblock backups stored on blocks:
>>         32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 
>> 1605632, 2654208,
>>         4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 
>> 78675968,
>>         102400000, 214990848, 512000000, 550731776, 644972544, 
>> 1934917632,
>>         2560000000, 3855122432
>>
>> Allocating group tables: done
>> Writing inode tables: done
>> Creating journal (32768 blocks): done
>> Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done
>>
>> From dumpe2fs I observe:
>> 1) the fs features match what I had on my broken fs
>> 2) the number of free blocks is 512088558484167 which is clearly wrong.
>>
>> # e2fsck -fnv /dev/md0
>> e2fsck 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
>> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
>> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
>> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
>> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
>> Pass 5: Checking group summary information
>> Free blocks count wrong (512088558484167, counted=3902749383).
>> Fix? no
>>
>> So the initial fs created by 1.42.10 appear to be bad.
>>
>> Filesystem volume name:   <none>
>> Last mounted on:          <not available>
>> Filesystem UUID: d00e9e59-3756-4e59-9539-bc00fe2446b5
>> Filesystem magic number:  0xEF53
>> Filesystem revision #:    1 (dynamic)
>> Filesystem features:      has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index 
>> filetype extent 64bit flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file 
>> uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize
>> Filesystem flags:         signed_directory_hash
>> Default mount options:    user_xattr acl
>> Filesystem state:         clean
>> Errors behavior:          Continue
>> Filesystem OS type:       Linux
>> Inode count:              61045248
>> Block count:              3906887168
>> Reserved block count:     0
>> Free blocks:              512088558484167
>> Free inodes:              61045237
>> First block:              0
>> Block size:               4096
>> Fragment size:            4096
>> Group descriptor size:    64
>> Reserved GDT blocks:      185
>> Blocks per group:         32768
>> Fragments per group:      32768
>> Inodes per group:         512
>> Inode blocks per group:   32
>> Flex block group size:    16
>> Filesystem created:       Sat Sep 12 11:27:55 2015
>> Last mount time:          n/a
>> Last write time:          Sat Sep 12 11:27:55 2015
>> Mount count:              0
>> Maximum mount count:      -1
>> Last checked:             Sat Sep 12 11:27:55 2015
>> Check interval:           0 (<none>)
>> Lifetime writes:          158 MB
>> Reserved blocks uid:      0 (user root)
>> Reserved blocks gid:      0 (group root)
>> First inode:              11
>> Inode size:               256
>> Required extra isize:     28
>> Desired extra isize:      28
>> Journal inode:            8
>> Default directory hash:   half_md4
>> Directory Hash Seed: f252a723-7016-43d1-97f8-579062a215e1
>> Journal backup:           inode blocks
>> Journal features:         (none)
>> Journal size:             128M
>> Journal length:           32768
>> Journal sequence:         0x00000001
>> Journal start:            0
>>
>>
>>
>> The next step is resizing + 4 TB with 1.42.12.
>> # MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/e12/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
>> /root/e12/out/sbin/resize2fs -p /dev/md0 19534435840k
>> resize2fs 1.42.12 (29-Aug-2014)
>> <and nothing more>
>> It did *not* print the "Resizing the filesystem on /dev/md0 to 
>> 4883608960 (4k) blocks." that it should have.
>>
>> I let it run for 90+ minutes sampling CPU and IO usage with iotop 
>> from time to time. It was using more or less 100% CPU and no visible io.
>>
>> So, I let e2fsck fix the free block count and re-did the resize:
>> # e2fsck -f /dev/md0
>> e2fsck 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
>> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
>> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
>> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
>> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
>> Pass 5: Checking group summary information
>> Free blocks count wrong (512088558484167, counted=3902749383).
>> Fix<y>? yes
>>
>> /dev/md0: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
>> /dev/md0: 11/61045248 files (0.0% non-contiguous), 4137785/3906887168 
>> blocks
>>
>> # MKE2FS_CONFIG=/root/e12/out/etc/mke2fs.conf 
>> /root/e12/out/sbin/resize2fs -p /dev/md0 19534435840k
>> resize2fs 1.42.12 (29-Aug-2014)
>> Resizing the filesystem on /dev/md0 to 4883608960 (4k) blocks.
>> Begin pass 2 (max = 6)
>> Relocating blocks XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>> Begin pass 3 (max = 119229)
>> Scanning inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>> Begin pass 5 (max = 8)
>> Moving inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>> The filesystem on /dev/md0 is now 4883608960 (4k) blocks long.
>>
>> dumpe2fs 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
>> Filesystem volume name:   <none>
>> Last mounted on:          <not available>
>> Filesystem UUID: 159d3929-1842-4f8d-907f-7509c16f06df
>> Filesystem magic number:  0xEF53
>> Filesystem revision #:    1 (dynamic)
>> Filesystem features:      has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index 
>> filetype extent 64bit flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file 
>> uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize
>> Filesystem flags:         signed_directory_hash
>> Default mount options:    user_xattr acl
>> Filesystem state:         clean
>> Errors behavior:          Continue
>> Filesystem OS type:       Linux
>> Inode count:              76306432
>> Block count:              4883608960
>> Reserved block count:     0
>> Free blocks:              4878450712
>> Free inodes:              76306421
>> First block:              0
>> Block size:               4096
>> Fragment size:            4096
>> Group descriptor size:    64
>> Blocks per group:         32768
>> Fragments per group:      32768
>> Inodes per group:         512
>> Inode blocks per group:   32
>> RAID stride:              32752
>> Flex block group size:    16
>> Filesystem created:       Sat Sep 12 11:41:10 2015
>> Last mount time:          n/a
>> Last write time:          Sat Sep 12 11:56:20 2015
>> Mount count:              0
>> Maximum mount count:      -1
>> Last checked:             Sat Sep 12 11:49:28 2015
>> Check interval:           0 (<none>)
>> Lifetime writes:          279 MB
>> Reserved blocks uid:      0 (user root)
>> Reserved blocks gid:      0 (group root)
>> First inode:              11
>> Inode size:               256
>> Required extra isize:     28
>> Desired extra isize:      28
>> Journal inode:            8
>> Default directory hash:   half_md4
>> Directory Hash Seed: feeea566-bb38-44c6-a4d5-f97aa78001d4
>> Journal backup:           inode blocks
>> Journal features:         (none)
>> Journal size:             128M
>> Journal length:           32768
>> Journal sequence:         0x00000001
>> Journal start:            0
>>
>> Looking good so far, and now for the final resize to 24 TB using 
>> 1.42.13:
>> # resize2fs -p /dev/md0
>> resize2fs 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
>> Resizing the filesystem on /dev/md0 to 5860330752 (4k) blocks.
>> Begin pass 2 (max = 6)
>> Relocating blocks XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>> Begin pass 3 (max = 149036)
>> Scanning inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>> Begin pass 5 (max = 14)
>> Moving inode table XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>> Should never happen: resize inode corrupt!
>>
>> # dumpe2fs -h /dev/md0
>> dumpe2fs 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
>> Filesystem volume name:   <none>
>> Last mounted on:          <not available>
>> Filesystem UUID: 159d3929-1842-4f8d-907f-7509c16f06df
>> Filesystem magic number:  0xEF53
>> Filesystem revision #:    1 (dynamic)
>> Filesystem features:      has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index 
>> filetype extent 64bit flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file 
>> uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize
>> Filesystem flags:         signed_directory_hash
>> Default mount options:    user_xattr acl
>> Filesystem state:         clean with errors
>> Errors behavior:          Continue
>> Filesystem OS type:       Linux
>> Inode count:              91568128
>> Block count:              5860330752
>> Reserved block count:     0
>> Free blocks:              5853069550
>> Free inodes:              91568117
>> First block:              0
>> Block size:               4096
>> Fragment size:            4096
>> Group descriptor size:    64
>> Blocks per group:         32768
>> Fragments per group:      32768
>> Inodes per group:         512
>> Inode blocks per group:   32
>> RAID stride:              32752
>> Flex block group size:    16
>> Filesystem created:       Sat Sep 12 11:41:10 2015
>> Last mount time:          n/a
>> Last write time:          Sat Sep 12 12:03:55 2015
>> Mount count:              0
>> Maximum mount count:      -1
>> Last checked:             Sat Sep 12 11:49:28 2015
>> Check interval:           0 (<none>)
>> Lifetime writes:          279 MB
>> Reserved blocks uid:      0 (user root)
>> Reserved blocks gid:      0 (group root)
>> First inode:              11
>> Inode size:               256
>> Required extra isize:     28
>> Desired extra isize:      28
>> Journal inode:            8
>> Default directory hash:   half_md4
>> Directory Hash Seed: feeea566-bb38-44c6-a4d5-f97aa78001d4
>> Journal backup:           inode blocks
>> Journal superblock magic number invalid!
>>
>>
>> On 2015-09-04 00:16, Johan Harvyl wrote:
>>> Hello again,
>>>
>>> I finally got around to dig some more into this and made what I 
>>> consider some good progress as I am now able to mount the filesystem 
>>> read-only so I thought I would update this thread a bit.
>>>
>>> Short one sentence recap since it's been a while since the original 
>>> post: I am trying to recover a filesystem that was quite badly 
>>> damaged by an offline resize2fs of a fairly modern ext4fs from 20 TB 
>>> to 24 TB.
>>>
>>> I spent a lot of time trying to get something meaningful out of 
>>> e2fsck/debugfs and learned quite a bit in the process and I would 
>>> like to briefly share some observations.
>>>
>>> 1) The first hurdle running e2fsck -fnv is that the "Superblock has 
>>> an invalid journal (inode 8)" is considered fatal and cannot be 
>>> fixed, at least not in r/o mode so e2fsck just stops, this check 
>>> needed to go away.
>>>
>>> 2) e2fsck gets utterly confused by the "bad block inode" that 
>>> incorrectly gets identified as having something worth looking at and 
>>> spends days iterating through blocks (before I cancelled it). 
>>> Removing handling if ino == EXT2_BAD_INO in pass1 and pass1b made 
>>> things a bit better.
>>>
>>> 3) e2fsck using a backup superblock
>>> ext2fs_check_desc: Corrupt group descriptor: bad block for inode table
>>> e2fsck: Group descriptors look bad... trying backup blocks...
>>> This is bad, as it means using a superblock that has not been 
>>> updated with the +4TB. Consequently it gets the location of the 
>>> first block group wrong, or at the very least the first inode table 
>>> that houses the root inode.
>>> Forcing it to use the master superblock again makes things a bit 
>>> better.
>>>
>>> I have some logs from various e2fsck runs with various amounts of 
>>> hacks applied if they are of any interest to developers? I will also 
>>> likely have the filesystem in this state for a week or two more if 
>>> any other information I can extract is of interest to figure out 
>>> what made resize2fs screw things up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the end, the only actual change I have made to the filesystem to 
>>> make it mountable is that I borrowed a root inode from a different 
>>> filesystem and updated the i_block pointer to point to the extent 
>>> tree corresponding to the root inode of my broken filesystem which 
>>> was quite easy to find by just looking for the string "lost+found".
>>>
>>> # mount -o ro,noload /dev/md0 /mnt/loop
>>> [2815465.034803] EXT4-fs (md0): mounted filesystem without journal. 
>>> Opts: noload
>>>
>>> # df -h /dev/md0
>>> Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>>> /dev/md0         22T -382T  404T    - /mnt/loop
>>>
>>> Uh oh, does not look to good.. But hey, doing some checks on the 
>>> data contents and so far results are very promising. An "ls /" looks 
>>> good and so does a lot of the data that I can verify checksums on, 
>>> checks are still running...
>>>
>>> I really do not know how to move on with trying to repair the 
>>> filesystem with e2fsck. I do not feel brave enough to let it run r/w 
>>> on the given how many hacks that I consider very dirty were required 
>>> to even get it this far. At this point letting it make changes to 
>>> the filesystem may actually make it worse so I see no other way 
>>> forward than extracting all the contents and recreating the 
>>> filesystem from scratch.
>>>
>>> Question is though, what is the recommended way to create the 
>>> filesystem? 64bit is clearly necessary, but what about the other 
>>> feature flags like flex_bg/meta_bg/resize_inode...? I do not care 
>>> much about slight gains in performance, robustness is more 
>>> important, and that it can be resized in the future.
>>>
>>> Only online resize from now on, never offlline, I learned that 
>>> lesson...
>>>
>>> Will it be possible to expand from 24 TB to 28 TB online?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -johan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015-08-13 20:12, Johan Harvyl wrote:
>>>> On 2015-08-13 15:27, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:00:50AM +0200, Johan Harvyl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any offline resize with 1.42.13, but it sounds 
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> you were originally using mke2fs and resize2fs 1.42.10, which 
>>>>>>> did have
>>>>>>> some bugs, and so the question is what sort of might it might have
>>>>>>> left things.
>>>>>> What kind of bugs are we talking about, mke2fs? resize2fs? 
>>>>>> e2fsck? Any
>>>>>> specific commits of interest?
>>>>> I suspect it was caused by a bug in resize2fs 1.42.10. The problem is
>>>>> that off-line resize2fs is much more powerful; it can handle moving
>>>>> file system metadata blocks around, so it can grow file systems in
>>>>> cases which aren't supported by online resize --- and it can shrink
>>>>> file systems when online resize doesn't support any kind of file
>>>>> system shrink.  As such, the code is a lot more complicated, whereas
>>>>> the online resize code is much simpler, and ultimately, much more
>>>>> robust.
>>>> Understood, so would it have been possible to move from my 20 TB -> 
>>>> 24 TB fs with
>>>> online resize? I am confused by the threads I see on the net with 
>>>> regards to this.
>>>>>> Can you think of why it would zero out the first thousands of
>>>>>> inodes, like the root inode, lost+found and so on? I am thinking
>>>>>> that would help me assess the potential damage to the files. Could I
>>>>>> perhaps expect the same kind of zeroed out blocks at regular
>>>>>> intervals all over the device?
>>>>> I didn't realize that the first thousands of inodes had been zeroed;
>>>>> either you didn't mention this earier or I had missed that from your
>>>>> e-mail.  I suspect the resize inode before the resize was pretty
>>>>> terribly corrupted, but in a way that e2fsck didn't complain.
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I may not have been clear on that it was not just the first handful 
>>>> of inodes.
>>>>
>>>> When I manually sampled some inodes with debugfs and a disk editor, 
>>>> the first group
>>>> I found valid inodes in was:
>>>>  Group 48: block bitmap at 1572864, inode bitmap at 1572880, inode 
>>>> table at 1572896
>>>>
>>>> With 512 inodes per group that would mean at least some 24k inodes 
>>>> are blanked out,
>>>> but I did not check them all, I just sampled groups manually so 
>>>> there could be some
>>>> valid in some of the groups below group 48 or a lot more invalid 
>>>> afterwards.
>>>>
>>>>> I'll have to try to reproduce the problem based how you originally
>>>>> created and grew the file system and see if I can somehow reproduce
>>>>> the problem.  Obviously e2fsck and resize2fs should be changed to 
>>>>> make
>>>>> this operation much more robust.  If you can tell me the exact
>>>>> original size (just under 16TB is probably good enough, but if you
>>>>> know the exact starting size, that might be helpful), and then steps
>>>>> by which the file system was grown, and which version of e2fsprogs 
>>>>> was
>>>>> installed at the time, that would be quite helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>                         - Ted
>>>>
>>>> Cool, I will try to go through its history in some detail below.
>>>>
>>>> If you have ideas on what I could look for, like ideas on if there 
>>>> is a particular periodicity
>>>> to the corruption I can write some python to explore such theories.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The filesystem was originally created with e2fsprogs 1.42.10-1 and 
>>>> most likely linux-image
>>>> 3.14 from Debian.
>>>>
>>>> # mkfs.ext4 /dev/md0 -i 262144 -m 0 -O 64bit
>>>> mke2fs 1.42.10 (18-May-2014)
>>>> Creating filesystem with 3906887168 4k blocks and 61045248 inodes
>>>> Filesystem UUID: 13c2eb37-e951-4ad1-b194-21f0880556db
>>>> Superblock backups stored on blocks:
>>>>         32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 
>>>> 1605632, 2654208,
>>>>         4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 
>>>> 78675968,
>>>>         102400000, 214990848, 512000000, 550731776, 644972544, 
>>>> 1934917632,
>>>>         2560000000, 3855122432
>>>>
>>>> Allocating group tables: done
>>>> Writing inode tables: done
>>>> Creating journal (32768 blocks): done
>>>> Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done
>>>> #
>>>>
>>>> It was expanded with 4 TB (another 976721792 4k blocks). Best I can 
>>>> tell from my logs this
>>>> was done with either e2fsprogs:amd64 1.42.12-1 or 1.42.12-1.1 
>>>> (debian packages) and
>>>> Linux 3.16. Everything was running fine after this.
>>>> NOTE #1: It does *not* look like this filesystem was ever touched 
>>>> by resize2fs 1.42.10.
>>>> NOTE #2: The diff between debian packages 1.42.12-1 and 1.42.12-1.1 
>>>> appear to be this:
>>>> 49d0fe2 libext2fs: fix potential buffer overflow in closefs()
>>>>
>>>> Then for the final 4 TB for a total of 5860330752 4k blocks which 
>>>> was done with
>>>> e2fsprogs:amd64 1.42.13-1 and Linux 4.0. This is where the:
>>>> "Should never happen: resize inode corrupt"
>>>> was seen.
>>>>
>>>> In both cases the same offline resize was done, with no exotic 
>>>> options:
>>>> # umount /dev/md0
>>>> # fsck.ext4 -f /dev/md0
>>>> # resize2fs /dev/md0
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> -johan
>>>
>>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists