From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/19] xfs: verify dquot blocks as they are read from disk
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:08:43 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121011220843.GI2739@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121011214805.GI6346@infradead.org>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 05:48:05PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:51:01PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >
> > Add a dquot buffer verify callback function and pass it into the
> > buffer read functions. This checks all the dquots in a buffer, but
> > cannot completely verify the dquot ids are correct. Also, errors
> > cannot be repaired, so an additional function is added to repair bad
> > dquots in the buffer if such an error is detected in a context where
> > repair is allowed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
>
> Looks good,
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> But after the first half dozen of callback I have a question:
>
> > + if (error) {
> > + XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR("xfs_dquot_read_verify",
> > + XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW, mp, d);
> > + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + bp->b_iodone = NULL;
> > + xfs_buf_ioend(bp, 0);
>
> It seems we always call xfs_buf_ioerror on errors, and then always
> do a
>
> bp->b_iodone = NULL;
> xfs_buf_ioend(bp, 0);
>
> for each callback. What is the reason we can't take these two into the
> core buffer cache code?
I could, but that
requires changing all the iodone callbacks to function
that way. There is no reason a b_iodone function can't set another
b_iodone function to be called (i.e. chained completions), and
moving the bp->b_iodone = NULL; into the xfs_buf_ioend() code will
essentially prevent that. So I'm simply avoiding having to do
unnecessary extra work and validation by doing it this way.
Further, the next set of patches that introduce write verifiers
factor the read verifier into a verify function and two wrappers:
verify()
{
}
write_verify()
{
verify(bp);
}
read_verify()
{
verify(bp);
bp->b_pre_io = write_verify;
bp->b_iodone = NULL;
xfs_buf_ioend(bp, 0);
}
And when CRC validation is added, it becomes:
write_verify()
{
verify(bp);
calc_crc(bp, crc_offset);
}
read_verify()
{
verify_crc(bp, crc_offset);
verify();
bp->b_pre_io = write_verify;
bp->b_iodone = NULL;
xfs_buf_ioend(bp, 0);
}
So you can see that there is different processing for the read and
write operations, so handing the iodone/ioend processing in the read
verifier isn't a big deal.
If we want to change how we execute iodone processing, then I think
it's better to wait till all this falls out and we can tailor the
solution with the full set of use cases in view....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-11 22:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-09 3:50 [PATCH 00/19] xfs: buffer read verifier infrastructure Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 01/19] xfs: growfs: don't read garbage for new secondary superblocks Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 02/19] xfs: make buffer read verication an IO completion function Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 03/19] xfs: uncached buffer reads need to return an error Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-11 22:11 ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-12 2:28 ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 04/19] xfs: verify superblocks as they are read from disk Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-11 22:28 ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 05/19] xfs: verify AGF blocks " Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 06/19] xfs: verify AGI " Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 07/19] xfs: verify AGFL " Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-11 21:52 ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:50 ` [PATCH 08/19] xfs: verify inode buffers " Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-11 21:55 ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 09/19] xfs: verify btree blocks " Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 10/19] xfs: verify dquot " Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-11 22:08 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 11/19] xfs: add verifier callback to directorry read code Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 21:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 12/19] xfs: factor dir2 block read operations Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 13/19] xfs: verify dir2 block format buffers Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 14/19] xfs: factor dir2 free block reading Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 15/19] xfs: factor out dir2 data " Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 16/19] xfs: factor dir2 leaf read Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 17/19] xfs: factor and verify attr leaf reads Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 18/19] xfs: add xfs_da_node verification Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 3:51 ` [PATCH 19/19] xfs: Add verifiers to dir2 data readahead Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 12:09 ` [PATCH 00/19] xfs: buffer read verifier infrastructure Mark Tinguely
2012-10-11 21:42 ` Dave Chinner
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=20121011220843.GI2739@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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