[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Apparent serious progressive ext4 data corruption bug in 3.6.3 (and other stable branches?)
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:37:08PM +0100, Nix wrote:
> I can reproduce this on a small filesystem and stick the image somewhere
> if that would be of any use to anyone. (If I'm very lucky, merely making
> this offer will make the problem go away. :} )

I'm not sure the image is going to be that useful. What we really
need to do is to get a reliable reproduction of what _you_ are seeing.

It's clear from Eric's experiments that journal_checksum is dangerous.
In fact, I will likely put it under an #ifdef EXT4_EXPERIMENTAL to try
to discourage people from using it in the future. There are things
I've been planning on doing to make it be safer, but there's a very
good *reason* that both journal_checksum and journal_async_commit are
not on by default.

That's why one of the things I asked you to do when you had time was
to see if you could reproduce the problem you are seeing w/o

The other experiment that would be really useful if you could do is to
try to apply these two patches which I sent earlier this week:

[PATCH 1/2] ext4: revert "jbd2: don't write superblock when if its empty
[PATCH 2/2] ext4: fix I/O error when unmounting an ro file system

... and see if they make a difference.

If they don't make a difference, I don't want to apply patches just
for placebo/PR reasons. And for Eric at least, he can reproduce the
journal checksum error followed by fairly significant corruption
reported by e2fsck with journal_checksum, and the presence or absense
of these patches make no difference for him. So I really don't want
to push these patches to Linus until I get confirmation that they make
a difference to *somebody*.


- Ted

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-26 23:41    [W:0.468 / U:1.704 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site