From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] xfs: modify verifiers to differentiate CRC from other errors
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:01:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5304B941.5090800@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392767549-25574-10-git-send-email-sandeen@redhat.com>
On 02/18/2014 06:52 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Modify all read & write verifiers to differentiate
> between CRC errors and other inconsistencies.
>
> This sets the appropriate error number on bp->b_error,
> and then calls xfs_verifier_error() if something went
> wrong. That function will issue the appropriate message
> to the user.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++--------------------
> fs/xfs/xfs_alloc_btree.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> fs/xfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c | 14 ++++++++------
> fs/xfs/xfs_attr_remote.c | 15 ++++++---------
> fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_btree.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c | 14 ++++++++------
> fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_block.c | 14 ++++++++------
> fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_data.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c | 14 ++++++++------
> fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_node.c | 14 ++++++++------
> fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c | 11 +++++++----
> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 12 ++++++++----
> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> fs/xfs/xfs_inode_buf.c | 3 +--
> fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c | 10 ++++------
> fs/xfs/xfs_symlink_remote.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 16 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
> index 9c7cf3d..9a93601 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
> @@ -474,7 +474,6 @@ xfs_agfl_read_verify(
> struct xfs_buf *bp)
> {
> struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> - int agfl_ok = 1;
>
> /*
> * There is no verification of non-crc AGFLs because mkfs does not
> @@ -485,14 +484,13 @@ xfs_agfl_read_verify(
> if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))
> return;
>
> - agfl_ok = xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGFL_CRC_OFF);
> -
> - agfl_ok = agfl_ok && xfs_agfl_verify(bp);
> -
> - if (!agfl_ok) {
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, bp->b_addr);
> + if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, offsetof(struct xfs_agfl, agfl_crc)))
> + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSBADCRC);
> + else if (!xfs_agfl_verify(bp))
Obviously you added the CRC_OFF directives earlier in the set. It looks
like this patch squashed a couple of them (XFS_AGF_CRC_OFF as well).
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> - }
> +
> + if (bp->b_error)
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> }
>
...
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
> index 4657586..8aa720d 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
> @@ -1573,13 +1573,17 @@ xfs_agi_read_verify(
> if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))
> agi_ok = xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGI_CRC_OFF);
>
> + if (!agi_ok)
> + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSBADCRC);
> +
> agi_ok = agi_ok && xfs_agi_verify(bp);
>
> if (unlikely(XFS_TEST_ERROR(!agi_ok, mp, XFS_ERRTAG_IALLOC_READ_AGI,
> - XFS_RANDOM_IALLOC_READ_AGI))) {
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, bp->b_addr);
> + XFS_RANDOM_IALLOC_READ_AGI)))
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> - }
> +
> + if (bp->b_error)
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> }
Any reason not to use the same if/else pattern here that the others are
now using (i.e., similar to xfs_agf_read_verify(), removing the need for
agi_ok)?
Brian
>
> static void
> @@ -1590,8 +1594,8 @@ xfs_agi_write_verify(
> struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = bp->b_fspriv;
>
> if (!xfs_agi_verify(bp)) {
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, bp->b_addr);
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> return;
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c
> index 0028c50..7e309b1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c
> @@ -243,12 +243,14 @@ static void
> xfs_inobt_read_verify(
> struct xfs_buf *bp)
> {
> - if (!(xfs_btree_sblock_verify_crc(bp) &&
> - xfs_inobt_verify(bp))) {
> - trace_xfs_btree_corrupt(bp, _RET_IP_);
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
> - bp->b_target->bt_mount, bp->b_addr);
> + if (!xfs_btree_sblock_verify_crc(bp))
> + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSBADCRC);
> + else if (!xfs_inobt_verify(bp))
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> +
> + if (bp->b_error) {
> + trace_xfs_btree_corrupt(bp, _RET_IP_);
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -258,9 +260,8 @@ xfs_inobt_write_verify(
> {
> if (!xfs_inobt_verify(bp)) {
> trace_xfs_btree_corrupt(bp, _RET_IP_);
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
> - bp->b_target->bt_mount, bp->b_addr);
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> return;
> }
> xfs_btree_sblock_calc_crc(bp);
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
> index 606b43a..24e9939 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
> @@ -102,8 +102,7 @@ xfs_inode_buf_verify(
> }
>
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_HIGH,
> - mp, dip);
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> #ifdef DEBUG
> xfs_alert(mp,
> "bad inode magic/vsn daddr %lld #%d (magic=%x)",
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c
> index 818359f..b134aa8 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c
> @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> /* Only fail bad secondaries on a known V5 filesystem */
> if (bp->b_bn == XFS_SB_DADDR ||
> xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb)) {
> - error = EFSCORRUPTED;
> + error = EFSBADCRC;
> goto out_error;
> }
> }
> @@ -623,10 +623,9 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
>
> out_error:
> if (error) {
> - if (error == EFSCORRUPTED)
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
> - mp, bp->b_addr);
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, error);
> + if (error == EFSCORRUPTED || error == EFSBADCRC)
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -661,9 +660,8 @@ xfs_sb_write_verify(
>
> error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, false);
> if (error) {
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
> - mp, bp->b_addr);
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, error);
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> return;
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink_remote.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink_remote.c
> index defa09f..9b32052 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink_remote.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink_remote.c
> @@ -133,11 +133,13 @@ xfs_symlink_read_verify(
> if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))
> return;
>
> - if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_SYMLINK_CRC_OFF) ||
> - !xfs_symlink_verify(bp)) {
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, bp->b_addr);
> + if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_SYMLINK_CRC_OFF))
> + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSBADCRC);
> + else if (!xfs_symlink_verify(bp))
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> - }
> +
> + if (bp->b_error)
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> }
>
> static void
> @@ -152,8 +154,8 @@ xfs_symlink_write_verify(
> return;
>
> if (!xfs_symlink_verify(bp)) {
> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, bp->b_addr);
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> return;
> }
>
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-19 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 23:52 [PATCH 0/9] current series for verifier error differentiation Eric Sandeen
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 1/9] xfs: skip verification on initial "guess" superblock read Eric Sandeen
2014-02-19 3:36 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 2/9] xfs: limit superblock corruption errors to actual corruption Eric Sandeen
2014-02-19 3:37 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 3/9] xfs: skip pointless CRC updates after verifier failures Eric Sandeen
2014-02-19 6:35 ` Jeff Liu
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 4/9] xfs: Use defines for CRC offsets in all cases Eric Sandeen
2014-02-19 7:56 ` Jeff Liu
2014-02-20 0:27 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-20 9:33 ` Jeff Liu
2014-02-20 9:41 ` Jeff Liu
2014-02-27 2:15 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 5/9] xfs: add helper for verifying checksums on xfs_bufs Eric Sandeen
2014-02-27 4:17 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 6/9] xfs: add helper for updating " Eric Sandeen
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 7/9] xfs: add xfs_verifier_error() Eric Sandeen
2014-02-19 6:30 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-20 2:58 ` [PATCH 7/9 V2] " Eric Sandeen
2014-02-27 4:20 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 8/9] xfs: print useful caller information in xfs_error_report Eric Sandeen
2014-02-19 12:42 ` Jeff Liu
2014-02-18 23:52 ` [PATCH 9/9] xfs: modify verifiers to differentiate CRC from other errors Eric Sandeen
2014-02-19 14:01 ` Brian Foster [this message]
2014-02-19 16:12 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-02-20 3:10 ` [PATCH 9/9 V2] " Eric Sandeen
2014-02-20 13:10 ` Brian Foster
2014-02-27 9:12 ` [PATCH 0/9] current series for verifier error differentiation Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5304B941.5090800@redhat.com \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.