On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:47:13 +0100 Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn_at_gmail.com> wrote: > I just had two panics as a result of enabling inode hashes on a > file system yesterday when I had to run fsck on it. > > The filesystem showed no problems at all yesterday, the problem > didn't appear until I accessed it today. > > NOTE that my fsck was installed from r341840 yesterday morning, > so it should be up-to-date. My kernel is also at r341840. > > I have run fsck on this filesystem six times. Although fsck > claims to have repaired the inode-check hash every time, it in > reality has not repaired anything. I know this because, after > the first two fsck runs, I mounted the filesystem. Accessing it > resulted in a immediate panic (the second of the two). > > The file system is located on a SSD with trim enabled. Whether > that is relevant I cannot say, but this is the ONLY filesystem > with inode hashes enabled. > > The inodes are all contiguous, from 122229888 thorugh 122229904. > Strangely, MTIME=Sep 6 23:21 2002 on every one of them, but the > SSD itslef is only a month old and the files on it only a few > weeks old. > > The panic message is > Inode 122229888: check-hash failed > panic: softdep_update_inodeblock: bad link count > > It almost appears like the softdep code in the kernel is not > aware of inode hashes and gets confused. > > I have the crash dumps and the core.txt files. > > It doesn't appear that I can disable the hashes using tunefs, so > my only remedy will be to run fsdb and clear these inodes and lose > quite a few rather large files. > I ran fsdb on every affected inode and allowed it to correct the inode hashes. After that, fsck no longer found any errors and I was able to mount and access the filesystem without a kernel panic. So, it would appear that fsdb really does correct inode hash errors, whereas fsck does not. -- Gary JennejohnReceived on Thu Dec 13 2018 - 09:39:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:19 UTC