New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

crashes on FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE i386 #22

Closed
hurzl opened this Issue Feb 7, 2013 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@hurzl

hurzl commented Feb 7, 2013

kernel: pid 92402 (ext4fuse), uid 0: exited on signal 6 (core dumped)

on an attempt to rsync from an ext4 filesystem

@gerard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerard

gerard Feb 7, 2013

Owner

Hi,

Thanks for your report. Sorry but I have to start with the questions :)

  • Could you upload somewhere the coredump?
  • If you don't have it anymore, can you reproduce the problem?
  • Do you know how big the file that produced the crash was?
  • Was the filesystem upgraded from ext3 to ext4 or was it cleanly formatted to ext3?
  • What architecture are you running (x86-64, i386, etc)?

BR,
Gerard.

Owner

gerard commented Feb 7, 2013

Hi,

Thanks for your report. Sorry but I have to start with the questions :)

  • Could you upload somewhere the coredump?
  • If you don't have it anymore, can you reproduce the problem?
  • Do you know how big the file that produced the crash was?
  • Was the filesystem upgraded from ext3 to ext4 or was it cleanly formatted to ext3?
  • What architecture are you running (x86-64, i386, etc)?

BR,
Gerard.

@hurzl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hurzl

hurzl Feb 7, 2013

  1. http://www.file-upload.net/download-7174023/ext4fuse.core.html

  2. I think many small files, was a big filesystem (2TB backup)
  3. I think created as ext4
  4. i386

hurzl commented Feb 7, 2013

  1. http://www.file-upload.net/download-7174023/ext4fuse.core.html

  2. I think many small files, was a big filesystem (2TB backup)
  3. I think created as ext4
  4. i386
@hurzl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hurzl

hurzl commented Feb 7, 2013

@gerard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerard

gerard Feb 7, 2013

Owner

Thanks, I got the file now.

Could you upload the ext4fuse binary too? It would speed things up, since I don't have any i386 freebsd install.

Owner

gerard commented Feb 7, 2013

Thanks, I got the file now.

Could you upload the ext4fuse binary too? It would speed things up, since I don't have any i386 freebsd install.

@hurzl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hurzl

hurzl commented Feb 7, 2013

gerard added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 7, 2013

Memory corruption with long symlinks
So we were happily writing an entire block to the buffer that the readlink
fuse operation was handling us.  That buffer is not necessarily big enough
for that.  In the particular case of #22, the buffer is 1025 bytes, while
the block size is the standard 4K.  Luckily, pread(2) calls us out and
refuses to corrupt the memory.
@gerard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerard

gerard Feb 7, 2013

Owner

Hi,

I found at least one problem thanks to the coredump. However, let me know if it fixes your issue or not (if it doesn't, send the new coredump). If everything goes fine, I'll tag a new version, since this is quite a bad bug.

BR,
Gerard.

Owner

gerard commented Feb 7, 2013

Hi,

I found at least one problem thanks to the coredump. However, let me know if it fixes your issue or not (if it doesn't, send the new coredump). If everything goes fine, I'll tag a new version, since this is quite a bad bug.

BR,
Gerard.

@hurzl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hurzl

hurzl Feb 7, 2013

I have already moved the disk to a linux box now ...
The other ext4 I have has no long links

hurzl commented Feb 7, 2013

I have already moved the disk to a linux box now ...
The other ext4 I have has no long links

@gerard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerard

gerard Feb 7, 2013

Owner

Ok, no worries, I'll close the issue then

Owner

gerard commented Feb 7, 2013

Ok, no worries, I'll close the issue then

@gerard gerard closed this Feb 7, 2013

@jiixyj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jiixyj

jiixyj Feb 11, 2013

I've had the same issue under FreeBSD 9.1 amd64. With the current git HEAD, everything works fine. Thank you very much!

jiixyj commented Feb 11, 2013

I've had the same issue under FreeBSD 9.1 amd64. With the current git HEAD, everything works fine. Thank you very much!

@gerard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerard

gerard Feb 11, 2013

Owner

Glad to hear that. I assume you are using 0.1.2? The FreeBSD package maintaner has already updated the port to latest HEAD (== 0.1.3), so the fix is there, but I don't know how that reflects in the FreeBSD release schedule...

Owner

gerard commented Feb 11, 2013

Glad to hear that. I assume you are using 0.1.2? The FreeBSD package maintaner has already updated the port to latest HEAD (== 0.1.3), so the fix is there, but I don't know how that reflects in the FreeBSD release schedule...

@jiixyj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jiixyj

jiixyj Feb 11, 2013

I was using the version from the 9.1-RELEASE ports tree, a snapshot release (20120803). On my server I try to stick to this ports tree as much as possible, only pulling in updated ports in case of bugs or security fixes. The RELEASE ports tree is never updated, so I have to do that manually. On my laptop I'm using an always up to date ports tree, as most people using ports probably do.

In any case, 0.1.3 from the current ports tree works fine.

jiixyj commented Feb 11, 2013

I was using the version from the 9.1-RELEASE ports tree, a snapshot release (20120803). On my server I try to stick to this ports tree as much as possible, only pulling in updated ports in case of bugs or security fixes. The RELEASE ports tree is never updated, so I have to do that manually. On my laptop I'm using an always up to date ports tree, as most people using ports probably do.

In any case, 0.1.3 from the current ports tree works fine.

@gerard

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerard

gerard Feb 11, 2013

Owner

Ok, that actually means that you could have hit any of the other bugs that were present in those snapshots.
Regardless, thanks for the feedback, be sure to fill an issue if you find something :)

Owner

gerard commented Feb 11, 2013

Ok, that actually means that you could have hit any of the other bugs that were present in those snapshots.
Regardless, thanks for the feedback, be sure to fill an issue if you find something :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment