On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:02 PM, David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote: > Commit 854437ca3c228d8ab3eb24d2efc1c21b5d56a635 ("btrfs-progs: > extent-tree: avoid allocating tree block that crosses stripe boundary") > does not work for 64k nodesize. Due to an off-by-one error, all queries > to check_crossing_stripes will return that all extents cross a stripe > and this will lead to a false ENOSPC. This crashes later > > $ ./mkfs.btrfs -n 64k image > > ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb77)[0x417f38] > ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_alloc_free_block+0x57)[0x417fe0] > ./mkfs.btrfs(__btrfs_cow_block+0x163)[0x408eb7] > ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_cow_block+0xd0)[0x4097c4] > ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_search_slot+0x16f)[0x40be4d] > ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_insert_empty_items+0xc0)[0x40d5f9] > ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_insert_item+0x99)[0x40da5f] > ./mkfs.btrfs(btrfs_make_block_group+0x4d)[0x41705c] > ./mkfs.btrfs(main+0xeef)[0x434b56]
Am I correct that this also causes false positives with btrfs check? I just ran a sanity check on an fs that had no problems whatsoever and was definitely not converted (so 16k nodesize) and got thousands of cross-stripe complaints; repair didn't help. Applying the patch seems to have fixed those; it completes without problems now. Holger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
