Re: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: New bitmap and inode table allocation for FLEX_BG v2

["Jose R. Santos" <jrs@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:46:50 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> I'm starting to audit this patch, and have a bunch of questions and
> observations.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 08:47:50PM -0600, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > +void ext2fs_bgd_set_flex_meta_flag(ext2_filsys fs, blk_t block)
> > +{
> > +	dgrp_t	group;
> > +
> > +	group = ext2fs_group_of_blk(fs, block);
> > +	if (!(fs->group_desc[group].bg_flags & EXT2_BG_FLEX_METADATA))
> > +		fs->group_desc[group].bg_flags |= EXT2_BG_FLEX_METADATA;
> > +}
> 
> This function is used nowhere else but in lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c,
> and it's not declared in lib/ext2fs/ext2fs.h.  So I've renamed it to
> bgd_set_flex_meta_flag() and declared it static, to make it clear that
> it's a private function.

Yes, this should be rename static as it is only intended to be used in
alloc_tables.c.  Somehow my brain did not register that functions with
the ext2fs_ prefix implies being a API accessible routine.

> The other question which immediately comes to mind is *why* we need to
> set this flag in the first place.  The kernel doesn't use it, and
> there doesn't seem to be any reason why needs to be an on-disk flag at
> all.  It seems to be used as a way of communicating to mke2fs about
> whether or not we can safely set the EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT flag.  
> 
> This turns out to be a kludge whose short comings show other problems.
> The real problem is that most of the libext2fs isn't BLOCK_UNINIT
> aware.  So for example, if debugfs is used to write a file into the
> filesystem, and the block group doesn't have an initialized bitmap,
> the Wrong Thing will happen.  More to the point, if you use mke2fs to
> a 1k blocksize filesystem, and the journal is bigger than 16 megs, (or
> with a 4k blocksize filesystem, if the journal is bigger than 512
> megs), you could easily end up allocating the journal into a block
> group with BG_BLOCK_UNINIT.  Oops.

There are two reasons for adding the flag.  First to improve fsck
performance by not having to check all the bgd each time we need to set
BLOCK_UNINIT.  Since we did not define a limited range of were
meta-data could be allocated for a particular block group, not having
the flag could be very expensive on a very large fs.  The second reason
is that having a flag makes it possible to have the BLOCK_UNINIT flag
set on block groups with meta-data without taking a big impact when
initializing those block groups that dont have meta-data(currently
unimplemented in the kernel).  The kludge that we use to avoid
inaccurate free block counts in the kernel was to initialized all block
groups which contain meta-data.  The flag allow us to very quickly skip
block groups which do not contain meta-data and do a more thorough
search for those that do.

> This wasn't that much of a big deal since up until now lazy_bg was
> only used for debugging really big filesystems, and not much else.  It
> was a quick hack for debugging purposes only.  But given that
> uninititalized blockgroups are intended for more general use, we have
> to make sure all of these corner cases are handled correctly.
> 
> Just looking at it quickly, it seems like the right thing to do is
> split setup_lazy_bg() into two parts.  The first part sets
> EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT for all block groups, and then we modify the
> block allocation functions in lib/ext2fs to clear the BLOCK_UNINIT
> flag --- and then later on, we update the bg_free_blocks_count and
> s_free_blocks_count for the lazy_bg case.  
> 
> This needs more study though, and there is a similar issue, although
> not quite so serious about making sure all of libext2fs is
> INODE_UNINIT aware.
> 
> > +/*
> > + * This routine searches for free blocks that can allocate a full
> > + * group of bitmaps or inode tables for a flexbg group.  Returns the
> > + * block number with a correct offset were the bitmaps and inode
> > + * tables can be allocated continously and in order.
> > + */
> > +blk_t ext2fs_flexbg_offset(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group, blk_t start_blk,
> > +			   ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap, int offset, int size)
> 
> See above comments about no one using this feature but
> lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c.  Is there reason why this function isn't
> declared static?  (And if it is renamed static, better to remove the
> ext2fs_ prefix, to make it clear it isn't a globally visible ext2fs
> library function.)

Ditto for this one too.

> 
> > diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/closefs.c b/lib/ext2fs/closefs.c
> > index a523c8e..83d7cc4 100644
> > --- a/lib/ext2fs/closefs.c
> > +++ b/lib/ext2fs/closefs.c
> > @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ int ext2fs_super_and_bgd_loc(ext2_filsys fs,
> >  	unsigned int meta_bg, meta_bg_size;
> >  	blk_t	numblocks, old_desc_blocks;
> >  	int	has_super;
> > +	unsigned int flex_bg_size = 1 << fs->super->s_log_groups_per_flex;
> >  
> >  	group_block = ext2fs_group_first_block(fs, group);
> >  
> 
> The function doesn't use this new variable; so it should be just
> deleted and removed.
> 
> 						- Ted



-JRS