e2fsck.patch
[LU-752] e2fsck can fail when encountering empty extended attribute blocks Created: 11/Oct/11 Updated: 17/Jan/12 Resolved: 17/Jan/12 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 1.8.6 |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major |
| Reporter: | Ken Hornstein | Assignee: | Niu Yawei (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | e2fsprogs | ||
| Environment: |
SLES 11SP1 |
||
| Attachments: |
e2fsck.patch
|
| Severity: | 3 |
| Epic: | e2fsprogs |
| Rank (Obsolete): | 6545 |
| Description |
|
When using e2fsck to create databases for later usage by lfsck, we ran into a problem where e2fsck would fail; the error was "error: only handle v1/v3 LOV EAs, not 00000001". After some research, what I found was that as part of pass 1 of e2fsck, e2fsck would call the function e2fsck_lfsck_find_ea(), and that it would occasionally pass down in a blank EA block (I guess it is iterating through all of the EA blocks). For these blank EA blocks the name length (e_name_len) is set to 0. But e2fsck_lfsck_find_ea() calls strncmp() to match the EA name against the values that Lustre uses, and since the length passed into strncmp() is 0, the strncmp always succeeds. But since this isn't a Lustre EA block lfsck_check_lov_ea() fails on it (with the above error). Attached is a simple change that will check to see if e_name_len is 0 and return from e2fsck_lfsck_find_ea(); this solved our problem. It also occurs to me that for the sake of completeness e_name_len should be checked against the actual lengths of the EA data that Lustre uses; otherwise e2fsck could get confused if someone creates a EA attribute named "lo" or even just "l". |
| Comments |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 26/Oct/11 ] |
|
Niu, can you please include this change into the e2fsprogs release you are working on. |
| Comment by Niu Yawei (Inactive) [ 16/Jan/12 ] |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 17/Jan/12 ] |
|
Patch landed for e2fsprogs-1.41.90.wc4 |
| Comment by Build Master (Inactive) [ 17/Jan/12 ] |
|
Integrated in Result = SUCCESS
|
| Comment by Build Master (Inactive) [ 17/Jan/12 ] |
|
Integrated in Result = SUCCESS
|
| Comment by Build Master (Inactive) [ 17/Jan/12 ] |
|
Integrated in Result = SUCCESS
|
| Comment by Build Master (Inactive) [ 17/Jan/12 ] |
|
Integrated in Result = SUCCESS
|
