Error: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed. #33

modscleo4 · 2021-10-03T21:52:43Z

There is a bug between commit 7f32753 and
bfb5124 causing ntfs2btrfs failing at approx. 32% inodes processed (both Windows and Linux)

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

maharmstone · 2021-10-03T23:01:54Z

Are you able to give me a stack trace for the assertion?

modscleo4 · 2021-10-04T14:16:35Z

I think it was something like this: /usr/include/c++/11.1.0/bits/stl_vector.h:1045: std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::operator[](std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type) [with _Tp = long unsigned int; _Alloc = std::allocator<long unsigned int>; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference = long unsigned int&; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type = long unsigned int]: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed.

I ran ntfs2btrfs with GDB but it stopped at libc

maharmstone · 2021-10-04T17:05:59Z

Thanks, that helps - it looks like you've defined _GLIBCXX_DEBUG while I didn't. Does 527e13b fix your problem?

modscleo4 · 2021-10-06T18:17:51Z

Sorry, i've been too busy

I will try to reproduce the bug as soon as possible and give you a reply

Etaash-mathamsetty · 2021-12-04T00:23:21Z

I am using the latest version on the AUR it this path didn't fix the issue

judemille · 2022-02-24T09:00:30Z

I just got the same error.

Processing inode 2245846 / 2245846 (100.0%)
Mapped 1755901 inodes directly.
Rewrote 1 inodes.
Inlined 260211 inodes.
Updating directory sizes
Calculating checksums 430285926 / 430285926 (100.0%)
/usr/include/c++/11.2.0/bits/stl_vector.h:1045: std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::operator[](std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type) [with _Tp = unsigned char; _Alloc = default_init_allocator<unsigned char>; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference = unsigned char&; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type = long unsigned int]: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed.
fish: Job 1, 'sudo ntfs2btrfs /dev/sdc1' terminated by signal SIGABRT (Abort)

At this point, is my data likely to still be intact?

modscleo4 · 2022-02-24T14:14:59Z

At this point, is my data likely to still be intact?

Yes, no data was lost.

I'll try to run ntfs2btrfs again, I had to format my drive and lost everything, but I'll try to reproduce this bug and generate a core dump

maharmstone · 2022-02-24T17:48:02Z

If you can let me know which line of the code is generating the assertion, I'll have a look.

liberodark · 2022-03-04T21:02:58Z

Hi,

Same issue for me :

Using Zstd compression.
Using CRC32C for checksums.
Not calculating checksums.
Processing inode 7735 / 7735 (100.0%)
Mapped 7199 inodes directly.
Rewrote 0 inodes.
Inlined 35 inodes.
Updating directory sizes
/usr/include/c++/11.2.0/bits/stl_vector.h:1045: std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::operator[](std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type) [with _Tp = unsigned char; _Alloc = default_init_allocator<unsigned char>; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference = unsigned char&; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type = long unsigned int]: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed.
Abandon

maharmstone · 2022-03-05T03:45:18Z

Again, I'll need to know which line of code is causing this in order to be able to fix it.

code-irisnk · 2022-05-05T16:17:17Z

(gdb) r /dev/sda4
Starting program: /usr/bin/ntfs2btrfs /dev/sda4
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/usr/lib/libthread_db.so.1".
Using Zstd compression.
Using CRC32C for checksums.
Processing inode 235629 / 235629 (100.0%)
Mapped 139696 inodes directly.
Rewrote 33 inodes.
Inlined 42220 inodes.
Updating directory sizes
Calculating checksums 6794819 / 6794819 (100.0%)
/usr/include/c++/11.2.0/bits/stl_vector.h:1045: std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::operator[](std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type) [with _Tp = unsigned char; _Alloc = default_init_allocator<unsigned char>; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference = unsigned char&; std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::size_type = long unsigned int]: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed.

Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x00007ffff7ade34c in __pthread_kill_implementation () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0  0x00007ffff7ade34c in __pthread_kill_implementation () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
#1  0x00007ffff7a914b8 in raise () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
#2  0x00007ffff7a7b534 in abort () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
#3  0x0000555555578c6a in ?? ()
#4  0x00007fffffffe110 in ?? ()
#5  0x0000555555565c15 in ?? ()
#6  0x00007fffffffe110 in ?? ()
#7  0x000055555556a3af in ?? ()
#8  0x000000007e812a30 in ?? ()
#9  0x00005555555e8dc0 in ?? ()
#10 0x00007fffffffe0f0 in ?? ()
#11 0x00007fff00000003 in ?? ()
#12 0x00007fffffffe110 in ?? ()
#13 0x00005555555e9010 in ?? ()
#14 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()

code-irisnk · 2022-05-05T16:28:44Z

(gdb) info registers
rax            0x0                 0
rbx            0x7ffff7962740      140737347200832
rcx            0x7ffff7ade34c      140737348756300
rdx            0x6                 6
rsi            0x470e4             291044
rdi            0x470e4             291044
rbp            0x470e4             0x470e4
rsp            0x7fffffffde80      0x7fffffffde80
r8             0x7fffffffdf50      140737488346960
r9             0x0                 0
r10            0x8                 8
r11            0x246               582
r12            0x6                 6
r13            0x0                 0
r14            0x1000              4096
r15            0x7fffffffe490      140737488348304
rip            0x7ffff7ade34c      0x7ffff7ade34c <__pthread_kill_implementation+284>
eflags         0x246               [ PF ZF IF ]
cs             0x33                51
ss             0x2b                43
ds             0x0                 0
es             0x0                 0
fs             0x0                 0
gs             0x0                 0

No line number information available for address 0x7ffff7ade34c <__pthread_kill_implementation+284>

code-irisnk · 2022-05-05T16:31:17Z

Is there any way I can help?

modscleo4 · 2022-05-05T16:31:37Z

Is there any way I can help?

@nkrichronos What is your ntfs2btrfs version?

code-irisnk · 2022-05-05T16:40:31Z

ntfs2btrfs --version returns
ntfs2btrfs 20210923

I installed it with the ntfs2btrfs-git AUR package.

maharmstone · 2022-05-05T16:42:49Z

Would it be possible for you to compile this yourself, and give me a full backtrace?

code-irisnk · 2022-05-05T16:44:55Z

Just compiled, working on the backtrace.

code-irisnk · 2022-05-05T16:50:17Z

Aaaaaand that worked :P

I think you did actually fix it with commit 527e13b

code-irisnk · 2022-05-05T16:55:22Z

I wonder why ntfs2btrfs-git is not updated to the latest commit, is the PKGBUILD working as intended?

modscleo4 · 2022-05-05T17:05:07Z

Aaaaaand that worked :P

I think you did actually fix it with commit 527e13b

That's nice to know. I tried to run before on Visual Studio debugger so I can see the line it fails but it ran without throwing that exception. I'll go back before [527e13b] to see if that commit really fixed, but apparently yes.

modscleo4 · 2022-05-05T17:06:05Z

I wonder why ntfs2btrfs-git is not updated to the latest commit, is the PKGBUILD working as intended?

I thought the PKGBUILD was setting an specific commit but no, maybe something with pkgver=r220.7664363

Etaash-mathamsetty · 2022-05-05T22:52:04Z

I wonder why ntfs2btrfs-git is not updated to the latest commit, is the PKGBUILD working as intended?

I thought the PKGBUILD was setting an specific commit but no, maybe something with pkgver=r220.7664363

the pkgver is updated after a git clone is ran, so probably not that (unless its not a well made PKGBUILD)

maharmstone · 2022-05-05T22:54:26Z

Do we know what compiler flags the repo maintainers are using?

modscleo4 · 2022-05-06T02:16:28Z

Do we know what compiler flags the repo maintainers are using?

This is the PKGBUILD, the only flag is -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=ntfs2btrfs-git

modscleo4 · 2022-05-06T02:48:14Z

I finally made it crash, this is the line:

dev.read(&ret[buf_start], buf_end - buf_start);

[527e13b] really fixed this bug, so I'm closing this issue

modscleo4 closed this as completed May 6, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Error: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed. #33

Error: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed. #33

modscleo4 commented Oct 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

maharmstone commented Oct 3, 2021

modscleo4 commented Oct 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading

maharmstone commented Oct 4, 2021

modscleo4 commented Oct 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Etaash-mathamsetty commented Dec 4, 2021

judemille commented Feb 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

modscleo4 commented Feb 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

maharmstone commented Feb 24, 2022

liberodark commented Mar 4, 2022

maharmstone commented Mar 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

maharmstone commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Etaash-mathamsetty commented May 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

maharmstone commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 6, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 6, 2022

Error: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed. #33

Error: Assertion '__n < this->size()' failed. #33

Comments

modscleo4 commented Oct 3, 2021 • edited Loading

maharmstone commented Oct 3, 2021

modscleo4 commented Oct 4, 2021 • edited Loading

maharmstone commented Oct 4, 2021

modscleo4 commented Oct 6, 2021 • edited Loading

Etaash-mathamsetty commented Dec 4, 2021

judemille commented Feb 24, 2022 • edited Loading

modscleo4 commented Feb 24, 2022 • edited Loading

maharmstone commented Feb 24, 2022

liberodark commented Mar 4, 2022

maharmstone commented Mar 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

maharmstone commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

code-irisnk commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 5, 2022 • edited Loading

Etaash-mathamsetty commented May 5, 2022 • edited Loading

maharmstone commented May 5, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 6, 2022

modscleo4 commented May 6, 2022

modscleo4 commented Oct 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

modscleo4 commented Oct 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading

modscleo4 commented Oct 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading

judemille commented Feb 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

modscleo4 commented Feb 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

modscleo4 commented May 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Etaash-mathamsetty commented May 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading