On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 02:53:31PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 09:11:04AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:44:55PM -0600, Colton Lewis wrote: > > > > > When I try to run fsck on partition m of this disk: > > > > > > # /dev/rsd1c: > > > type: SCSI > > > disk: SCSI disk > > > label: TOSHIBA MD04ACA4 > > > duid: 8ad0895bc1395d21 > > > flags: > > > bytes/sector: 512 > > > sectors/track: 63 > > > tracks/cylinder: 255 > > > sectors/cylinder: 16065 > > > cylinders: 486401 > > > total sectors: 7814037168 > > > boundstart: 262208 > > > boundend: 7814037168 > > > drivedata: 0 > > > > > > 16 partitions: > > > # size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg] > > > a: 1136000 262208 4.2BSD 2048 16384 8875 > > > b: 1821490 1398208 swap > > > c: 7814037168 0 unused > > > d: 1571840 3219712 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12280 > > > e: 2318784 4791552 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958 > > > f: 2672000 7110336 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958 > > > g: 1545856 9782336 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12077 > > > h: 4944064 11328192 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958 > > > i: 262144 64 MSDOS > > > j: 2428672 16272256 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958 > > > k: 6954496 18700928 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958 > > > l: 7898912 25655424 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958 > > > m: 7780482560 33554560 4.2BSD 8192 65536 1 > > > > > > fsck reports that it cannot read negative block numbers: > > > > > > ** /dev/rsd1m > > > BAD SUPER BLOCK: MAGIC NUMBER WRONG > > > > > > LOOK FOR ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCKS? yes > > > > > > > > > CANNOT READ: BLK 749213312 > > > CONTINUE? yes > > > > > > THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 749213312, 749213313, > > > 749213314, 749213315, 749213316, 749213317, 749213318, 749213319, > > > > > > CANNOT READ: BLK -2147483648 > > > CONTINUE? yes > > > > > > THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: -2147483648, > > > -2147483647, -2147483646, -2147483645, -2147483644, -2147483643, > > > -2147483642, -2147483641, -2147483640, -2147483639, -2147483638, > > > -2147483637, -2147483636, -2147483635, -2147483634, -2147483633, > > > > > > ...<repeat for the rest of the disk> > > > > > > How can I make sure fsck can handle a partition this size? There is > > > nothing important on there at the moment. > > > > > > -- > > > Sincerely, > > > Colton Lewis > > > > Did you actually newfs that partition? It looks like not since no > > superblock or alternative is found. > > > > That said, it looks like there's an overflow somehere. I do not have > > the hardware to investigate this though. > > > > On a side note: a partition that large will cause problem in other > > areas. Even if it would work, the memory needed to do an fsck will be > > huge. > > > > Also: provide dmeg! The platform involved can play a role in this. > > > > -Otto > > I tried to reproduce your problem using a vnd image using a sparse > file. > > If I do not newfs the device, I get results very similar to what you > are seeing. > > If I newfs the partition first, an fsck -f works as expected. So without > further information, I assume you did not run newfs. > > I'll invetstigate the negative block numbers. > > -Otto
THis diff should fixes the negative blocknumbers here, -Otto Index: fsck.h =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsck.h,v retrieving revision 1.31 diff -u -p -r1.31 fsck.h --- fsck.h 19 Jan 2015 18:20:47 -0000 1.31 +++ fsck.h 4 Jan 2018 15:46:37 -0000 @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ extern long numdirs, listmax, inplast; long secsize; /* actual disk sector size */ char nflag; /* assume a no response */ char yflag; /* assume a yes response */ -int bflag; /* location of alternate super block */ +daddr_t bflag; /* location of alternate super block */ int debug; /* output debugging info */ int cvtlevel; /* convert to newer file system format */ char usedsoftdep; /* just fix soft dependency inconsistencies */ Index: main.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/fsck_ffs/main.c,v retrieving revision 1.50 diff -u -p -r1.50 main.c --- main.c 9 Sep 2016 15:37:15 -0000 1.50 +++ main.c 4 Jan 2018 15:46:37 -0000 @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ volatile sig_atomic_t returntosingle; -int argtoi(int, char *, char *, int); +long long argtoi(int, char *, char *, int); int checkfilesys(char *, char *, long, int); int main(int, char *[]); @@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) case 'b': skipclean = 0; bflag = argtoi('b', "number", optarg, 10); - printf("Alternate super block location: %d\n", bflag); + printf("Alternate super block location: %lld\n", + (long long)bflag); break; case 'c': @@ -140,13 +141,13 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) exit(ret); } -int +long long argtoi(int flag, char *req, char *str, int base) { char *cp; - int ret; + long long ret; - ret = (int)strtol(str, &cp, base); + ret = strtoll(str, &cp, base); if (cp == str || *cp) errexit("-%c flag requires a %s\n", flag, req); return (ret); Index: setup.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/fsck_ffs/setup.c,v retrieving revision 1.63 diff -u -p -r1.63 setup.c --- setup.c 9 Sep 2016 15:37:15 -0000 1.63 +++ setup.c 4 Jan 2018 15:46:37 -0000 @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ setup(char *dev, int isfsdb) } found: doskipclean = 0; - pwarn("USING ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCK AT %d\n", bflag); + pwarn("USING ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCK AT %lld\n", (long long)bflag); } if (debug) printf("clean = %d\n", sblock.fs_clean);