From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chao Yu Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix quota info to adjust recovered data Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:28:41 +0800 Message-ID: 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> <24ee1c19-ccc1-31db-12d0-30ac76fd645e@huawei.com> <20180912195406.GB8356@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180912195406.GB8356@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jaegeuk Kim , Chao Yu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-f2fs-devel.lists.sourceforge.net On 2018/9/13 3:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2018/9/12 9:40, 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. >> >> In v8, there are two cases we didn't guarantee quota file's consistence: >> 1. flush time in block_operation exceed a threshold. >> 2. dquot subsystem error occurs. >> >> For above case, fsck should repair the quota file by default. > > Okay, I got another failure and it seems CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG was not set > during the recovery. So, we have something missing in the recovery in terms > of quota updates. Yeah, I checked the code, just found one suspected place: find_fsync_dnodes() - f2fs_recover_inode_page - inc_valid_node_count - dquot_reserve_block dquot info is not initialized now - add_fsync_inode - dquot_initialize I think we should reserve block for inode block after dquot_initialize(), can you confirm this? > >> >>> >>> 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: >>> >>> +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). >> >> 8) fsck is do fscking in a mounted image? > > Missing unmount before 8). :P Alright. :) Thanks, > >> >> Thanks, >> >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> >>> . >>>