On 2018年05月28日 11:47, Steve Leung wrote: > On 05/26/2018 06:57 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2018年05月26日 22:06, Steve Leung wrote: >>> On 05/20/2018 07:07 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2018年05月21日 04:43, Steve Leung wrote: >>>>> On 05/19/2018 07:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2018年05月20日 07:40, Steve Leung wrote: >>>>>>> On 05/17/2018 11:49 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2018年05月18日 13:23, Steve Leung wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi list, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've got 3-device raid1 btrfs filesystem that's throwing up some >>>>>>>>> "corrupt leaf" errors in dmesg. This is a uniquified list I've >>>>>>>>> observed lately: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1 >>>>>>>>> block=4970196795392 >>>>>>>>> slot=307 ino=206231 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for >>>>>>>>> uncompressed >>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 3468 expect 3469 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would you please use "btrfs-debug-tree -b 4970196795392 >>>>>>>> /dev/sda1" to >>>>>>>> dump the leaf? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached btrfs-debug-tree dumps for all of the blocks that I saw >>>>>>> messages for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's caught by tree-checker code which is ensuring all tree blocks >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> correct before btrfs can take use of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That inline extent size check is tested, so I'm wondering if this >>>>>>>> indicates any real corruption. >>>>>>>> That btrfs-debug-tree output will definitely help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, if I didn't miss anything, there should not be any inlined >>>>>>>> extent >>>>>>>> in root tree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1 >>>>>>>>> block=4970552426496 >>>>>>>>> slot=91 ino=209736 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for >>>>>>>>> uncompressed >>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 3496 expect 3497 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Same dump will definitely help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1 >>>>>>>>> block=4970712399872 >>>>>>>>> slot=221 ino=205230 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for >>>>>>>>> uncompressed >>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 1790 expect 1791 >>>>>>>>> BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1 >>>>>>>>> block=4970803920896 >>>>>>>>> slot=368 ino=205732 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for >>>>>>>>> uncompressed >>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 2475 expect 2476 >>>>>>>>> BTRFS critical (device sda1): corrupt leaf: root=1 >>>>>>>>> block=4970987945984 >>>>>>>>> slot=236 ino=208896 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for >>>>>>>>> uncompressed >>>>>>>>> inline extent, have 490 expect 491 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All of them seem to be 1 short of the expected value. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some files do seem to be inaccessible on the filesystem, and btrfs >>>>>>>>> inspect-internal on any of those inode numbers fails with: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ERROR: ino paths ioctl: Input/output error >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and another message for that inode appears. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 'btrfs check' (output attached) seems to notice these corruptions >>>>>>>>> (among >>>>>>>>> a few others, some of which seem to be related to a problematic >>>>>>>>> attempt >>>>>>>>> to build Android I posted about some months ago). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other information: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arch Linux x86-64, kernel 4.16.6, btrfs-progs 4.16. The >>>>>>>>> filesystem >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> about 25 snapshots at the moment, only a handful of compressed >>>>>>>>> files, >>>>>>>>> and nothing fancy like qgroups enabled. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> btrfs fi show: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Label: none uuid: 9d4db9e3-b9c3-4f6d-8cb4-60ff55e96d82 >>>>>>>>> Total devices 4 FS bytes used 2.48TiB >>>>>>>>> devid 1 size 1.36TiB used 1.13TiB path /dev/sdd1 >>>>>>>>> devid 2 size 464.73GiB used 230.00GiB path >>>>>>>>> /dev/sdc1 >>>>>>>>> devid 3 size 1.36TiB used 1.13TiB path /dev/sdb1 >>>>>>>>> devid 4 size 3.49TiB used 2.49TiB path /dev/sda1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> btrfs fi df: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Data, RAID1: total=2.49TiB, used=2.48TiB >>>>>>>>> System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=416.00KiB >>>>>>>>> Metadata, RAID1: total=7.00GiB, used=5.29GiB >>>>>>>>> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dmesg output attached as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance for any assistance! I have backups of all the >>>>>>>>> important stuff here but it would be nice to fix the >>>>>>>>> corruptions in >>>>>>>>> place. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And btrfs check doesn't report the same problem as the default >>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>> mode doesn't have such check. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please also post the result of "btrfs check --mode=lowmem >>>>>>>> /dev/sda1" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, attached. It seems to notice the same off-by-one problems, >>>>>>> though >>>>>>> there also seem to be a couple of examples of being off by more than >>>>>>> one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, it doesn't detect, as there is no off-by-one error at >>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is, kernel is reporting error on completely fine leaf. >>>>>> >>>>>> Further more, even in the same leaf, there are more inlined extents, >>>>>> and >>>>>> they are all valid. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the kernel reports the error out of nowhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> More problems happens for extent_size where a lot of them is >>>>>> offset by >>>>>> one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moreover, the root owner is not printed correctly, thus I'm >>>>>> wondering if >>>>>> the memory is corrupted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please try memtest+ to verify all your memory is correct, and if so, >>>>>> please try the attached patch and to see if it provides extra info. >>>>> >>>>> Memtest ran for about 12 hours last night, and didn't find any errors. >>>>> >>>>> New messages from patched kernel: >>>>> >>>>> BTRFS critical (device sdd1): corrupt leaf: root=1 >>>>> block=4970196795392 >>>>> slot=307 ino=206231 file_offset=0, invalid ram_bytes for uncompressed >>>>> inline extent, have 3468 expect 3469 (21 + 3448) >>>> >>>> This output doesn't match with debug-tree dump. >>>> >>>> item 307 key (206231 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 15118 itemsize 3468 >>>> generation 692987 type 0 (inline) >>>> inline extent data size 3447 ram_bytes 3447 compression 0 (none) >>>> >>>> Where its ram_bytes is 3447, not 3448. >>>> >>>> Further more, there are 2 more inlined extent, if something really went >>>> wrong reading ram_bytes, it should also trigger the same warning. >>>> >>>> item 26 key (206227 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 30917 itemsize 175 >>>> generation 367 type 0 (inline) >>>> inline extent data size 154 ram_bytes 154 compression 0 (none) >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> item 26 key (206227 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 30917 itemsize 175 >>>> generation 367 type 0 (inline) >>>> inline extent data size 154 ram_bytes 154 compression 0 (none) >>>> >>>> The only way to get the number 3448 is from its inode item. >>>> >>>> item 305 key (206231 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 18607 itemsize 160 >>>> generation 1136104 transid 1136104 size 3447 nbytes >>3448<< >>>> block group 0 mode 100644 links 1 uid 1000 gid 1000 rdev 0 >>>> sequence 4 flags 0x0(none) >>>> atime 1390923260.43167583 (2014-01-28 15:34:20) >>>> ctime 1416461176.910968309 (2014-11-20 05:26:16) >>>> mtime 1392531030.754511511 (2014-02-16 06:10:30) >>>> otime 0.0 (1970-01-01 00:00:00) >>>> >>>> But the slot is correct, and nothing wrong with these item >>>> offset/length. >>>> >>>> And the problem of wrong "root=" output also makes me pretty curious. >>>> >>>> Is it possible to make a btrfs-image dump if all the filenames in this >>>> fs are not sensitive? >>> >>> Hi Qu Wenruo, >>> >>> I sent details of the btrfs-image to you in a private message. Hopefully >>> you've received it and will find it useful. >> >> Sorry, I didn't find the private message. > > Ok, resent with a subject of "resend: btrfs image dump". Hopefully it > didn't get caught by your spam filter.
Still nope. What about encrypt it and upload it to some public storage provider like google drive/dropbox? Thanks, Qu > > Steve > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
