Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
DescriptionRobert Peterson
2010-08-11 20:31:07 UTC
Description of problem:
If you navigate to the rindex file in gfs2_edit, then display
the structures, page up and down no longer work. They show
you the first rindex entry regardless.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
RHEL6.0
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. gfs2_edit /dev/bob/bob
2. m<up><up>jm<down><down><down><down><down><down>j<page dn>
Actual results:
gfs2_edit - Global File System Editor (use with extreme caution)
Block #99330 (0x18402) of 268435456 (0x10000000)(disk inode)
---------------- rindex file -------------------
RG index entries found: 32768.
RG #0
ri_addr 17 0x11
ri_length 3 0x3
ri_data0 20 0x14
ri_data 40936 0x9fe8
ri_bitbytes 10234 0x27fa
...
Expected results:
gfs2_edit - Global File System Editor (use with extreme caution)
Block #99330 (0x18402) of 268435456 (0x10000000)(disk inode)
---------------- rindex file -------------------
RG index entries found: 32768.
RG #9
ri_addr 106487 0x19ff7
ri_length 1 0x1
ri_data0 106488 0x19ff8
ri_data 8188 0x1ffc
ri_bitbytes 2047 0x7ff
...
Additional info:
The data is there, and in fact, you can get to it by using the
non-interactive (-p) option: gfs2_edit -p rindex /dev/bob/bob
Created attachment 438297[details]
Patch to fix the problem
Here's the easy fix. Also, I discovered a circumvention.
The problem does not occur if you display the extended data
from another structure first. For example, display the
jindex first, then jump to the rindex.
Given that we have a patch for this and this is likely going to be seen in a situation where customers are going to be trying to fix a broken filesystem it would be good if we fixed this in a 6.0.z errata. Having to work around this bug in the midst of a broken filesystem or filesystem recovery with a customer, over the phone, will start confusing matters.
This bug is not serious enough to z-stream, in my opinion.
First of all, there is a circumvention given in the bugzilla,
and that is to first display metadata for jindex file, for
example. Second, customers or anyone can print the entire
rindex by doing gfs2_edit -p rindex /dev/device. Third, it's
unlikely that customers should be getting in to that much
of the nuts and bolts of their gfs2 file system. It's not
that big of deal to push the patch to 6.0.z, but it seems like
we're starting to push trivial things in that shouldn't be.
For bug #634623 I did a bunch of work to rearrange the code.
This patch is incompatible with those, since the affected
code was moved to another source file. Therefore, I'm closing
this one as a duplicate of bug #634623 and I'll include the
revised patch with that bug record.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 634623 ***