On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 02:53:31PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 09:11:04AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:44:55PM -0600, Colton Lewis wrote:
> >
> > > When I try to run fsck on partition m of this disk:
> > >
> > > # /dev/rsd1c:
> > > type: SCSI
> > > disk: SCSI disk
> > > label: TOSHIBA MD04ACA4
> > > duid: 8ad0895bc1395d21
> > > flags:
> > > bytes/sector: 512
> > > sectors/track: 63
> > > tracks/cylinder: 255
> > > sectors/cylinder: 16065
> > > cylinders: 486401
> > > total sectors: 7814037168
> > > boundstart: 262208
> > > boundend: 7814037168
> > > drivedata: 0
> > >
> > > 16 partitions:
> > > # size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg]
> > > a: 1136000 262208 4.2BSD 2048 16384 8875
> > > b: 1821490 1398208 swap
> > > c: 7814037168 0 unused
> > > d: 1571840 3219712 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12280
> > > e: 2318784 4791552 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958
> > > f: 2672000 7110336 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958
> > > g: 1545856 9782336 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12077
> > > h: 4944064 11328192 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958
> > > i: 262144 64 MSDOS
> > > j: 2428672 16272256 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958
> > > k: 6954496 18700928 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958
> > > l: 7898912 25655424 4.2BSD 2048 16384 12958
> > > m: 7780482560 33554560 4.2BSD 8192 65536 1
> > >
> > > fsck reports that it cannot read negative block numbers:
> > >
> > > ** /dev/rsd1m
> > > BAD SUPER BLOCK: MAGIC NUMBER WRONG
> > >
> > > LOOK FOR ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCKS? yes
> > >
> > >
> > > CANNOT READ: BLK 749213312
> > > CONTINUE? yes
> > >
> > > THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 749213312, 749213313,
> > > 749213314, 749213315, 749213316, 749213317, 749213318, 749213319,
> > >
> > > CANNOT READ: BLK -2147483648
> > > CONTINUE? yes
> > >
> > > THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: -2147483648,
> > > -2147483647, -2147483646, -2147483645, -2147483644, -2147483643,
> > > -2147483642, -2147483641, -2147483640, -2147483639, -2147483638,
> > > -2147483637, -2147483636, -2147483635, -2147483634, -2147483633,
> > >
> > > ...<repeat for the rest of the disk>
> > >
> > > How can I make sure fsck can handle a partition this size? There is
> > > nothing important on there at the moment.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Colton Lewis
> >
> > Did you actually newfs that partition? It looks like not since no
> > superblock or alternative is found.
> >
> > That said, it looks like there's an overflow somehere. I do not have
> > the hardware to investigate this though.
> >
> > On a side note: a partition that large will cause problem in other
> > areas. Even if it would work, the memory needed to do an fsck will be
> > huge.
> >
> > Also: provide dmeg! The platform involved can play a role in this.
> >
> > -Otto
>
> I tried to reproduce your problem using a vnd image using a sparse
> file.
>
> If I do not newfs the device, I get results very similar to what you
> are seeing.
>
> If I newfs the partition first, an fsck -f works as expected. So without
> further information, I assume you did not run newfs.
>
> I'll invetstigate the negative block numbers.
>
> -Otto
THis diff should fixes the negative blocknumbers here,
-Otto
Index: fsck.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsck.h,v
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -p -r1.31 fsck.h
--- fsck.h 19 Jan 2015 18:20:47 -0000 1.31
+++ fsck.h 4 Jan 2018 15:46:37 -0000
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ extern long numdirs, listmax, inplast;
long secsize; /* actual disk sector size */
char nflag; /* assume a no response */
char yflag; /* assume a yes response */
-int bflag; /* location of alternate super block */
+daddr_t bflag; /* location of alternate super block */
int debug; /* output debugging info */
int cvtlevel; /* convert to newer file system format */
char usedsoftdep; /* just fix soft dependency inconsistencies */
Index: main.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/fsck_ffs/main.c,v
retrieving revision 1.50
diff -u -p -r1.50 main.c
--- main.c 9 Sep 2016 15:37:15 -0000 1.50
+++ main.c 4 Jan 2018 15:46:37 -0000
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
volatile sig_atomic_t returntosingle;
-int argtoi(int, char *, char *, int);
+long long argtoi(int, char *, char *, int);
int checkfilesys(char *, char *, long, int);
int main(int, char *[]);
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
case 'b':
skipclean = 0;
bflag = argtoi('b', "number", optarg, 10);
- printf("Alternate super block location: %d\n", bflag);
+ printf("Alternate super block location: %lld\n",
+ (long long)bflag);
break;
case 'c':
@@ -140,13 +141,13 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
exit(ret);
}
-int
+long long
argtoi(int flag, char *req, char *str, int base)
{
char *cp;
- int ret;
+ long long ret;
- ret = (int)strtol(str, &cp, base);
+ ret = strtoll(str, &cp, base);
if (cp == str || *cp)
errexit("-%c flag requires a %s\n", flag, req);
return (ret);
Index: setup.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/fsck_ffs/setup.c,v
retrieving revision 1.63
diff -u -p -r1.63 setup.c
--- setup.c 9 Sep 2016 15:37:15 -0000 1.63
+++ setup.c 4 Jan 2018 15:46:37 -0000
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ setup(char *dev, int isfsdb)
}
found:
doskipclean = 0;
- pwarn("USING ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCK AT %d\n", bflag);
+ pwarn("USING ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCK AT %lld\n", (long long)bflag);
}
if (debug)
printf("clean = %d\n", sblock.fs_clean);
