[LU-6096] sanity test_17m: e2fsck Inode 32775, i_size is 0, should be 4096

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Blocker
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.8.0
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.7.0
• Labels: HB
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Alex Zhuravlev
• Reporter: Maloo

Description

This issue was created by maloo for Bob Glossman <[e-mail]>

This issue relates to the following test suite run of review-ldiskfs: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/277e606e-976d-11e4-bafa-5254006e85c2.

I note that several other recent similar failures have been marked as LU-3534.
As I'm unsure of the reasoning for that and this one is seen on el7 I've raised it as new.
Somebody more expert may decide it's a dup after looking it over.

The sub-test test_17m failed with the following error:

e2fsck -fnvd /dev/lvm-Role_MDS/P1
e2fsck 1.42.12.wc1 (15-Sep-2014)
shadow-26vm8: check_blocks:2814: increase inode 32775 badness 0 to 1
shadow-26vm8: check_blocks:2814: increase inode 32776 badness 0 to 1
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Inode 32775, i_size is 0, should be 4096.  Fix? no

Inode 32776, i_size is 0, should be 4096.  Fix? no

Please provide additional information about the failure here.

Info required for matching: sanity 17m

Issue Links

• is duplicated by: LU-7094 object UID not being set correctly for non-root user
• is related to: LU-5022 support for 3.10 rhel7 linux kernel

Comments

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

yes, it still fails. see https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/32d9d04a-e38c-11e4-bb64-5254006e85c2

[Gerrit Updater]

Bob Glossman ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/14469
Subject: LU-6096 test: force test of known failure
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: 747eeed7e4eec9ea5c900886d97709b7d9ef9e0b

quickest way to prove it's still a problem is to let autotest tell us

[Peter Jones]

Is it still happening on EL7?

[James A Simmons]

Got around to update the SLES12 ldiskfs support to see if I can reproduce this issue. Before I saw this issue but now I can't seem to reproduce it with the latest ldiskfs patch.

[Alex Zhuravlev]

James, with el7 only?

[James A Simmons]

Actually I also have seen this error as well.

[Alex Zhuravlev]

oh, yes, for sure.. we know, linux kernel api is super stable

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

that's possible but not certain. el7 ldiskfs is http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/10249

could be some other non-obvious diff in kernel internal API for vfs, for example
even some e2fsck flaw specific to el7 is possible

[Alex Zhuravlev]

then can I guess this is introduced with one of the patches adding el7 support?

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

Alex, yes exactly. Appears 100% reproducible but only with el7 server.

[Alex Zhuravlev]

Bob, do I understand correctly that you can reproduce the issue with el7 server only? I can't reproduce with el6 locally.