From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jaegeuk Kim Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix quota info to adjust recovered data Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:50:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20180912195056.GA8356@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> References: <20180911201546.56566-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <7aa2e6f3-a4b2-dfdd-6205-f19c4bc952e6@kernel.org> <20180912000603.GA67662@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <20180912002700.GA69323@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <650f06f4-7ca3-a3ed-d149-88d1e9f93b7a@huawei.com> <20180912012550.GA71953@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <20180912024601.GA75537@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chao Yu Cc: Chao Yu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-f2fs-devel.lists.sourceforge.net On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/9/12 10:46, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2018/9/12 9:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>> On 2018/9/12 8:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>> On 09/11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 4:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>>>> fsck.f2fs is able to recover the quota structure, since roll-forward recovery > >>>>>>>> can recover it based on previous user information. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I didn't get it, both fsck and kernel recover quota file based all inodes' > >>>>>>> uid/gid/prjid, if {x}id didn't change, wouldn't those two recovery result be the > >>>>>>> same? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I thought that, but had to add this, since I was encountering quota errors right > >>>>>> after getting some files recovered. And, I thought it'd make it more safe to do > >>>>>> fsck after roll-forward recovery. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyway, let me test again without this patch for a while. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hmm, I just got a fsck failure right after some files recovered. > >>>> > >>>> To make sure, do you test with "f2fs: guarantee journalled quota data by > >>>> checkpoint"? if not, I think there is no guarantee that f2fs can recover > >>>> quote info into correct quote file, because, in last checkpoint, quota file > >>>> may was corrupted/inconsistent. Right? > >> > >> Oh, I forget to mention that, I add a patch to fsck to let it noticing > >> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG flag, and by default, fsck will fix corrupted quote > >> file if the flag is set, but w/o this flag, quota file is still corrupted > >> detected by fsck, I guess there is bug in v8. > >> > >> Can you add that in fsck too? so we can separate real kernel bug and quota > >> file corruption due to dquot subsystem error caused like below case: > > > > I'm testing to trigger fsck when it sees the below flag. But, when considering > > old f2fs-tools, we may need a way to detect mkfs version in superblock in order > > Oh, that will make kernel be complicated... kernel should be aware of user > space things... if user use old tools and new kernel, how about just let > kernel give warning on dmesg to user to upgrade f2fs tool set. > > And also, even if w/o CP_FSCK_FLAG, fsck can also detect such quote file > corruption, then do repair, right? It requires scanning the directory tree, which doesn't make sense. > > Thanks, > > > to determine whether we can rely on this new flag or not. > > > >> > >> +static int f2fs_dquot_acquire(struct dquot *dquot) > >> +{ > >> + int ret; > >> + > >> + ret = dquot_acquire(dquot); > >> + if (ret == -ENOSPC || ret == -EIO) > >> + set_sbi_flag(F2FS_SB(dquot->dq_sb), SBI_QUOTA_NEED_REPAIR); > >> + return ret; > >> +} > >> > >>> > >>> I hit the failure with v8. And, the test scenario is 1) enable fault injection > >>> 2) run fsstress, 3) call shutdowon, 4) kill fsstress, 5) unmount, 6) fsck, 7) > >>> mount, 8) fsck, 9) go 1). > >>> > >>> So, I'm hitting failure in 8) fsck. I expect 6) fsck should fix any corruption > >>> and 7) recovered some files on clean checkpoint. > >> > >> I see, I can add this case too, does this exist in your xfstest tree in github? > > > > I think so. > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 3 +++ > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c > >>>>>>>> index 95511ed11a22..1fde86a2107e 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c > >>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c > >>>>>>>> @@ -675,6 +675,9 @@ int f2fs_recover_fsync_data(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool check_only) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> need_writecp = true; > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> + /* quota is not fully updated due to the lack of user information. */ > >>>>>>>> + set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> /* step #2: recover data */ > >>>>>>>> err = recover_data(sbi, &inode_list, &dir_list); > >>>>>>>> if (!err) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > >>>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel > >>>>> > >>>>> . > >>>>> > >>> > >>> . > >>> > > > > . > >