Re: [PATCH URGENT v1.1 0/2] btrfs-progs: Fix the nobarrier behavior of write

Qu Wenruo
2019-03-27T14:42:30Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3498 bytes --]

On 2019/3/27 下午10:39, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/3/27 下午10:07, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:46:50PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> This urgent patchset can be fetched from github:
>>> https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-progs/tree/flush_super
>>> Which is based on v4.20.2.
>>>
>>> Before this patch, btrfs-progs writes to the fs has no barrier at all.
>>> All metadata and superblock are just buffered write, no barrier between
>>> super blocks and metadata writes at all.
>>>
>>> No wonder why even clear space cache can cause serious transid
>>> corruption to the originally good fs.
>>>
>>> Please merge this fix as soon as possible as I really don't want to see
>>> btrfs-progs corrupting any fs any more.
>>
>> How often does this happen in practice?
>
> As long as some BUG_ON() triggers, it's highly possible some transid
> error will happen.
>
>> I'm slightly incredulous about
>> btrfs-progs crashing often.
> We're making progress enhancing btrfs-progs, but just check the recent
> mail list, there is a report of clear free space cache v1 causing
> transid error:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/c59ce3ee-b0cd-f195-9dfa-11abd362d057@gmx.com/
>
> And that's clear cache making the transid problem more serious.
>
> Adding to this, we still have a case where bad cacheing em could lead to
> BUG_ON (*), I think btrfs-progs currently is only safe for RO operation,
> not heavy write operations.
>
> *: The fix is already submitted:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10840313/
>
>
>> Especially that pwrite() is buffered on the
>> kernel side, so we'd need a _kernel_ crash (usually a power loss) to break
>> consistency. Obviously, a potential data loss bug is always something that
>> needs fixing, I'm just wondering about severity.
>
> Oh, I see the point.
> But there is some case still very concerning:
>
> - Trans 1 get committed, write the following ems:
> em at 16K (fs root, gen = 1)
> em at 32K
> em at 48K
>
> - trans 2 get committed
> em at 64K (fs root, gen = 2)

Slightly wrong, in trans 2, fs root is not updated.

So please discard this mail, I'll resend a better version.

Thanks,
Qu

> em at 80K
>
> - trans 3 get half committed
> em at 16K (fs root, gen = 3)
>
> only trans 2 get its super block written to kernel, trans 3 get aborted
> before writing super block due to whatever the reason is.
>
> And you can see in that case, kernel will write:
> em at 16K (newer gen)
> em at 32K
> em at 48K
> em at 64K
> em at 80K
> sb at 4K (gen = 2)
>
> Then sb 2 will points to older fs root (gen = 1), but at that location,
> we have fs root with gen = 3.
>
> Causing the fs unable to be mounted.
>
>>
>> Or do I understand this wrong?
>>
>> Asking because Dimitri John Ledkov stepped down as Debian's maintainer of
>> this package, and I'm taking up the mantle (with Nicholas D Steeves being
>> around) -- modulo any updates other than important bug fixes being on hold
>> because of Debian's freeze. Thus, I wonder if this is important enough to
>> ask for a freeze exception.
>
> I can't help for packaging at all.
> As I'm an Arch user, just like a lot of reporters here. (And "I'm using
> Arch" here is not a meme).
>
> Personally I understand Debian has its policy, but really for
> btrfs-progs, we really like the upstream version.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>>
>>
>> Meow!
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]