Bug 501000 - FSError: filesystem check failed: 8
FSError: filesystem check failed: 8
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: anaconda (Show other bugs)
x86_64 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: David Lehman
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: F11AnacondaBlocker
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2009-05-15 08:55 EDT by James Laska
Modified: 2013-09-02 02:36 EDT (History)
11 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-06-09 09:26:00 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda. (178.85 KB, text/plain)
2009-05-15 08:56 EDT, James Laska
no flags Details
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda. (169.12 KB, text/plain)
2009-05-26 12:02 EDT, James Laska
no flags Details
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda. (288.09 KB, text/plain)
2009-05-31 22:35 EDT, Andrew Parker
no flags Details
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda. (153.13 KB, text/plain)
2009-06-15 08:59 EDT, Joachim Frieben
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description James Laska 2009-05-15 08:55:57 EDT
The following was filed automatically by anaconda:
anaconda exception report
Traceback (most recent call first):
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/storage/formats/fs.py", line 439, in doCheck
    raise FSError("filesystem check failed: %s" % rc)
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/storage/formats/fs.py", line 373, in doResize
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/storage/deviceaction.py", line 358, in execute
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/storage/devicetree.py", line 671, in processActions
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/storage/__init__.py", line 238, in doIt
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/packages.py", line 117, in turnOnFilesystems
FSError: filesystem check failed: 8
Comment 1 James Laska 2009-05-15 08:56:01 EDT
Created attachment 344144 [details]
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda.
Comment 2 Chris Lumens 2009-05-15 14:28:57 EDT
Error code 8 from e2fsck is "Operational error", whatever that means.
Comment 3 Eric Sandeen 2009-05-15 15:13:03 EDT
Got system logs from this attempt that might log the fsck output?  does fsck output go to logs?
Comment 4 James Laska 2009-05-15 15:19:55 EDT
esandeen: storage.log, program.log and other log files from the installer are attached in the anacdump.txt file.  Does this provide the information you're looking for?
Comment 5 Eric Sandeen 2009-05-15 15:36:07 EDT
oh, oops, so they are.  :)

But unfortunately, nope:

Running... ['e2fsck', '-f', '-p', '-C', '0', '/dev/mapper/vg_test150-lv_root']


doesn't seem to have logged the output.

I take it you were resizing a filesystem?  Looks like anaconda was doing its iterative search for minimum size, I thought only livecd  creation did that... damn.  It's potentially buggy, but I was willing to live with it in the livecd  creation stuff.  If anaconda is doing this it's a bigger problem.
Comment 6 James Laska 2009-05-15 15:48:22 EDT
This bug was encountered while attempting retesting a fix in bug#499662.  

= Steps to reproduce =

* Install autopart
* Initiate a new install, and select 'Custom partition'
* resize previous '/' logical volume to 5000
* add a new '/' using remaining free space in volume group
* resize previous '/boot' partition from 196 to 195
Comment 7 Eric Sandeen 2009-05-20 16:40:39 EDT
The minimum size calc in resize2fs was broken, and if you tried to resize below the real minimum, some error paths were such that corruption ensued.  I'm hoping that the fix for bug #499452 should fix this as well, though it's a bit hard to tell since we don't actually see your fsck output anywhere :(

Comment 8 James Laska 2009-05-26 12:02:46 EDT
Created attachment 345491 [details]
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda.
Comment 9 James Laska 2009-05-26 12:05:54 EDT
Reproduced again while retesting the fix for bug#499662

Test procedure outlined at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499662#c7
Comment 10 Eric Sandeen 2009-05-27 12:04:32 EDT
A couple more resize fixes were put into e2fsprogs-1.41.4-10 ... James, have you reproduced with that as well?
Comment 11 James Laska 2009-05-27 13:14:02 EDT
Retested in comment#8 on rawhide-20090526 which included e2fsprogs-1.41.4-10.fc11
Comment 12 Eric Sandeen 2009-05-27 13:35:45 EDT
Ok, we need to get fsck output via an update disk or something which doesn't throw away the result ....
Comment 13 James Laska 2009-05-29 10:44:53 EDT
I've hit this bug again while testing and at the suggestion of notting, reran the fsck manually.

sh-4.0# e2fsck -f -p -C 0 /dev/mapper/vg_brutus-lv_root 
/dev/mapper/vg_brutus-lv_root: Invalid argument while reading block 19431424

/dev/mapper/vg_brutus-lv_root: Invalid argument reading journal superblock

e2fsck: Invalid argument while checking ext3 journal for /dev/mapper/vg_brutus-lv_root
Comment 14 James Laska 2009-05-29 10:46:40 EDT
I should note, this system is available for remote access if needed.
Comment 15 Eric Sandeen 2009-05-29 11:14:58 EDT
The partition is ~19G:

# grep dm /proc/partitions
 253        0   20480000 dm-0

# bc

The filesystem thinks it's 149G!

# dumpe2fs -h /dev/mapper/vg_brutus-lv_root | grep -i block
dumpe2fs 1.41.4 (27-Jan-2009)
Block count:              39133184
Reserved block count:     1956659
Free blocks:              37661316
First block:              0
Block size:               4096

# bc

It looks like something shrunk the lv without first resizing the filesystem?
Comment 16 Eric Sandeen 2009-05-29 11:51:49 EDT
From the logs of the system I see:

Running... ['dumpe2fs', '-h', '/dev/mapper/vg_brutus-lv_root']
Block count:              39133184
Reserved block count:     1956659
Free blocks:              37661316
Free inodes:              9675499
First block:              0
Block size:               4096

and then:

Running... ['resize2fs', '-P', '/dev/mapper/vg_brutus-lv_root']
Estimated minimum size of the filesystem: 940881
resize2fs 1.41.4 (27-Jan-2009)

This gets us the estimated minimum size of the fs (940881 blocks)

I don't know if that second "resize2fs 1.41.4 (27-Jan-2009)" is resize2fs actually running?  It seems out of order.

But later I see:

Running... ['lvm', 'lvresize', '-L', '20000m', 'vg_brutus/lv_root']
  Reducing logical volume lv_root to 19.53 GB
  Logical volume lv_root successfully resized

I don't actually see the result of a resize2fs which did the actual resize, anywhere.
Comment 17 Andrew Parker 2009-05-31 22:35:46 EDT
Created attachment 346039 [details]
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda.
Comment 18 Andrew Parker 2009-05-31 22:59:02 EDT
I got this problem when I was just formatting existing partitions without resizing anything.

If I choose not to format the partitons, then I don't get this problem.
Comment 19 Eric Sandeen 2009-06-01 00:25:49 EDT
Andrew got:

Running... ['e2fsck', '-f', '-p', '-C', '0', '/dev/mapper/vgmp01-root4']
VGMP01_ROOT4: The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 10907648 blocks
The physical size of the device is 10485760 blocks
Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!

so here again, fs larger than block device... by about 1.6G

Toward the end of his attached logs I do see:

[2009-05-31 18:31:50,299]     INFO: executing action: Resize Format (Shrink) ext3 on vgmp01-root4 (lvmlv)

Dunno what's going on here.  I don't see any explicit calls to resize2fs (other than -P to get minimum (though I wonder why that's done?)) or to lvresize (or to mkfs for that matter).

Andrew, what is the size of your existing device that had the problem, I guess /dev/mapper/vgmp01-root4 ?  I wonder, if you manually mkfs.ext4 that and fsck it does it come up with a problem?

Comment 20 Andrew Parker 2009-06-01 12:40:02 EDT
I'm not sure why the install is even looking at vgmp01-root4, I wasn't using that logical volume at all - I was using vgmp01-root2 and /dev/sdb6 only for the install.

From /proc/partitions, the physical device that vgmp01-root4 is on is 976762584 blocks, whereas vgmp01-root4 is 41943040 (these are 1K blocks, no?) = 10485760 e2fsk's 4K blocks?

# tune2fs /dev/mapper/vgmp01-root4 -l
tune2fs 1.41.4 (27-Jan-2009)
Filesystem volume name:   <none>
Last mounted on:          <not available>
Filesystem UUID:          422e0390-6dff-4c1f-b27b-15e537c39619
Filesystem magic number:  0xEF53
Filesystem revision #:    1 (dynamic)
Filesystem features:      has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype sparse_super large_file
Filesystem flags:         signed_directory_hash
Default mount options:    (none)
Filesystem state:         clean
Errors behavior:          Continue
Filesystem OS type:       Linux
Inode count:              2621440
Block count:              10485760
Reserved block count:     524288
Free blocks:              10276173
Free inodes:              2621429
First block:              0
Block size:               4096
Fragment size:            4096
Reserved GDT blocks:      1021
Blocks per group:         32768
Fragments per group:      32768
Inodes per group:         8192
Inode blocks per group:   512
Filesystem created:       Sun May 31 22:47:45 2009
Last mount time:          Mon Jun  1 11:41:40 2009
Last write time:          Mon Jun  1 12:27:27 2009
Mount count:              0
Maximum mount count:      26
Last checked:             Mon Jun  1 12:27:27 2009
Check interval:           15552000 (6 months)
Next check after:         Sat Nov 28 11:27:27 2009
Reserved blocks uid:      0 (user root)
Reserved blocks gid:      0 (group root)
First inode:              11
Inode size:               256
Required extra isize:     28
Desired extra isize:      28
Journal inode:            8
Default directory hash:   half_md4
Directory Hash Seed:      1cead13e-7b4b-47b8-8527-ba0f856249df
Journal backup:           inode blocks

I'd chosen ext3 for both those partitions, and before I re-tried the install (without formatting during the installation) I had done a mkfs.ext on vgmp01-root4.  fsck now reports no problem:

# fsck -f -p -C /dev/mapper/vgmp01-root4
fsck 1.41.4 (27-Jan-2009)
/dev/mapper/vgmp01-root4: 11/2621440 files (0.0% non-contiguous), 209587/10485760 blocks

Its borks at -C 0 (with a help page), but not -C.
Comment 21 Eric Sandeen 2009-06-01 13:23:36 EDT
I wonder if it's possible that there was preexisting corruption on the device?

But in that case I'm still not sure why anaconda was fscking it if you weren't "using" it or otherwise modifying anything on it ....

(and, um, weird, -C should require an argument, looks like you've found a bug in fsck... in any case, anaconda was running e2fsck, not just fsck)
Comment 22 James Laska 2009-06-09 09:26:00 EDT
Retested using anaconda- (F-11-RC4) and no longer seeing this failure.  Closing this bug.
Comment 23 Bug Zapper 2009-06-09 11:52:42 EDT
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle.
Changing version to '11'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
Comment 24 Joachim Frieben 2009-06-15 08:59:00 EDT
Created attachment 347933 [details]
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.