ext4: invalid extent block on imx7

Stephen Warren swarren at wwwdotorg.org
Wed Mar 25 21:01:21 CET 2020

On 3/25/20 1:11 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 25.03.20 16:00, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 07:32:30AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 20.03.20 19:21, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 08:09:53PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> => ls mmc 0:1 /usr/lib/linux-image-4.9.11-1.3.0-dirty
>>>>> CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [bdfff998, bdfffd98]
>>>>> CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [bdfff998, bdfffd98]
>>>>> CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [bdfff998, bdfffd98]
>>>>> CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [bdfff998, bdfffd98]
>>>>> invalid extent block
>>>>> I'm using master (50be9f0e1ccc) on the MCIMX7SABRE, defconfig.
>>>>> What could this be? The filesystem is fine from Linux POV.
>>>> Use tune2fs -l and see if there's any new'ish features enabled that we
>>>> need some sort of check-and-reject for would be my first guess.
>>> Here are the reported feature flags:
>>> has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype extent 64bit
>>> flex_bg
>>> sparse_super large_file huge_file dir_nlink extra_isize metadata_csum
>> Of that, only metadata_csum means that you can't write to that image,
>> but you're just trying to read and that should be fine.  Can you go back
>> in time a little and see if this problem persists or if it's been
>> introduced of late?  Or recreate it on other platforms/SoCs?  Thanks!
> Bisected, regression of d5aee659f217 ("fs: ext4: cache extent data").
> Reverting this commit over master resolves the issue.
> Any idea what could be wrong? What I noticed is that the extent has a
> zeroed magic when things go wrong, so maybe it is falsely considered to
> be cached?

This is puzzling. I took another look at that patch and I don't see
anything wrong. My guess would be:

- Some unrelated memory corruption bug was exposed simply because this
patch uses dynamic memory or stack slightly differently than before.

- Something writes to the cached block, whereas the cache code assumes
the buffer is read-only.

The cache metadata exists on the stack and so only lasts for the
duration of read_allocated_block() or ext4fs_read_file(), so there's no
issue with re-using the cache across different devices, or persisting
across an ext4 write operation or anything like that. Is this easy to
reproduce; is there a small disk image that shows the problem?

More information about the U-Boot mailing list