From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
jack@suse.cz, yi.zhang@huawei.com, chengzhihao1@huawei.com,
yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd2: skip reading super block if it has been verified
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 01:26:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230615052654.GF51259@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230615034941.2335484-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:49:41AM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>
> We got a NULL pointer dereference issue below while running generic/475
> I/O failure pressure test.
Have you been able to reproduce this failure without the "recheck
checkpoint" series applied? I have not, so like with the e2fsck bug
fix, I can understand how the bug fix worked, but I still don't
understand why I wasn't seeing until I tried to apply the "recheck
chekcpoint" and the following patches in that patch series.
> If the journal super block had been read and verified, there is no need
> to call bh_read() read it again even if it has been failed to written
> out. So the fix could be simply move buffer_verified(bh) in front of
> bh_read().
>
> Fixes: d9eafe0afafa ("jbd2: factor out journal initialization from journal_get_superblock()")
That works, but it's worth noting that commit d9eafe0afafa caused the
failure by removing the check on j_journal_version to determine
whether the superblock was read or not. If the journal superblock had
been previously read, j_journal_version would be either 1 or 2. If it
had been zero, then superblock was not read. So from commit
d9eafe0afafa:
/* Load journal superblock if it is not loaded yet. */
- if (journal->j_format_version == 0 &&
- journal_get_superblock(journal) != 0)
+ if (journal_get_superblock(journal))
return 0;
if (!jbd2_format_support_feature(journal))
return 0;
The comment "Load journal superblock if it is not loaded yet." should
be removed, since it no longer makes sense once the
"journal->j_format_version == 0" check was removed.
I'll also note that a problem with d9eafe0afafa is that by removing
the j_format_version check, every time we add a revoke header, and we
call jbd2_journal_set_features(), this was causing an unconditional
read of the journal superblock and that unnecessary I/O could slow
down certain workloads.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-15 5:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-15 3:49 [PATCH] jbd2: skip reading super block if it has been verified Zhang Yi
2023-06-15 5:26 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2023-06-15 8:22 ` Zhang Yi
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=20230615052654.GF51259@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=chengzhihao1@huawei.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox