Re: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs-progs: Add check and repair for invalid inode generation

Qu Wenruo
2019-10-20T00:58:56Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4461 bytes --]

On 2019/10/20 上午8:26, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/10/20 上午12:24, Ferry Toth wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Op 19-10-2019 om 01:50 schreef Qu WenRuo:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019/10/19 上午4:32, Ferry Toth wrote:
>>>> Op 24-09-2019 om 10:11 schreef Qu Wenruo:
>>>>> We have at least two user reports about bad inode generation makes
>>>>> kernel reject the fs.
>>>>
>>>> May I add my report? I just upgraded Ubuntu from 19.04 -> 19.10 so
>>>> kernel went from 5.0 -> 5.3 (but I was using 4.15 too).
>>>>
>>>> Booting 5.3 leaves me in initramfs as I have /boot on @boot and / on /@
>>>>
>>>> In initramfs I can try to mount but get something like
>>>> btrfs critical corrupt leaf invalid inode generation open_ctree failed
>>>>
>>>> Booting old kernel works just as before, no errors.
>>>>
>>>>> According to the creation time, the inode is created by some 2014
>>>>> kernel.
>>>>
>>>> How do I get the creation time?
>>>
>>> # btrfs ins dump-tree -b <the bytenr reported by kernel> <your device>
>>
>> I just went back to the office to reboot to 5.3 and check the creation
>> times and found they were 2013 - 2014.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> And the generation member of INODE_ITEM is not updated (unlike the
>>>>> transid member) so the error persists until latest tree-checker
>>>>> detects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the situation can be fixed by reverting back to older kernel and
>>>>> copying the offending dir/file to another inode and delete the
>>>>> offending
>>>>> one, it still should be done by btrfs-progs.
>>>>>
>>>> How to find the offending dir/file from the command line manually?
>>>
>>> # find <mount point> -inum <inode number>
>>
>> This works, thanks.
>>
>> But appears unpractical. After fix 2 files and reboot, I found 4 more,
>> then 16, then I gave up.

Another solution is use "find" to locate the files with creation time
before 2015, and copy them to a new file, then replace the old file with
the new file.

It would be much safer than btrfs check --repair.

Thanks,
Qu

>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qu
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This patchset adds such check and repair ability to btrfs-check, with a
>>>>> simple test image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Qu Wenruo (3):
>>>>>     btrfs-progs: check/lowmem: Add check and repair for invalid inode
>>>>>       generation
>>>>>     btrfs-progs: check/original: Add check and repair for invalid inode
>>>>>       generation
>>>>>     btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: Add test image for invalid inode
>>>>> generation
>>>>>       repair
>>>>>
>>>>>    check/main.c                                  |  50 +++++++++++-
>>>>>    check/mode-lowmem.c                           |  76
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    check/mode-original.h                         |   1 +
>>>>>    .../.lowmem_repairable                        |   0
>>>>>    .../bad_inode_geneartion.img.xz               | Bin 0 -> 2012 bytes
>>>>>    5 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>>> tests/fsck-tests/043-bad-inode-generation/.lowmem_repairable
>>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>>> tests/fsck-tests/043-bad-inode-generation/bad_inode_geneartion.img.xz
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> I checked out and built v5.3-rc1 of btrfs-progs. Then ran it on my
>> mounted rootfs with linux 5.0 and captured the log (~1800 lines 209
>> errors).
>
> It's really not recommended to run btrfs check, especially repair on the
> mounted fs, unless it's RO.
>
> A new transaction from kernel can easily screw up the repaired fs.
>>
>> I'm not sure if using the v5.0 kernel and/or checking mounted distorts
>> the results? Else I'm going to need a live usb with a v5.3 kernel and
>> v5.3 btrfs-progs.
>>
>> If you like I can share the log. Let me know.
>>
>> This issue can potentially cause a lot of grief. Our company server runs
>> Ubuntu LTS (18.04.02) with a 4.15 kernel on a btrfs boot/rootfs with
>> ~100 snapshots. I guess the problematic inodes need to be fixed on each
>> snapshot prior to upgrading to 20.04 LTS (which might be on kernel ~5.6)?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> Do I understand correctly that this FTB is caused by more strict
>> checking of the fs by the kernel, while the tools to fix the detected
>> corruptions are not yet released?
>
> Yes.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>

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