From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: don't shutdown log recovery on validation errors
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:13:06 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130614001306.GM29338@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130613220903.GA20932@sgi.com>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 05:09:03PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:08:27PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 08:04:41PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:19:06PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that items logged multiple times
> > > > and replayed by log recovery do not take objects back in time. When
> > > > theya re taken back in time, the go into an intermediate state which
> > > > is corrupt, and hence verification that occurs on this intermediate
> > > > state causes log recovery to abort with a corruption shutdown.
> > > >
> > > > Instead of causing a shutdown and unmountable filesystem, don't
> > > > verify post-recovery items before they are written to disk. This is
> > > > less than optimal, but there is no way to detect this issue for
> > > > non-CRC filesystems If log recovery successfully completes, this
> > > > will be undone and the object will be consistent by subsequent
> > > > transactions that are replayed, so in most cases we don't need to
> > > > take drastic action.
> > > >
> > > > For CRC enabled filesystems, leave the verifiers in place - we need
> > > > to call them to recalculate the CRCs on the objects anyway. This
> > > > recovery problem canbe solved for such filesystems - we have a LSN
> > > > stamped in all metadata at writeback time that we can to determine
> > > > whether the item should be replayed or not. This is a separate piece
> > > > of work, so is not addressed by this patch.
> > >
> > > Is there a test case for this one? How are you reproducing this?
> >
> > The test case was Dave Jones running sysrq-b on a hung test machine.
> > The machine would occasionally end up with a corrupt home directory.
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2013-May/026759.html
> >
> > Analysis from a metdadump provided by Dave:
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2013-June/026965.html
> >
> > And Cai also appeared to be hitting this after a crash on 3.10-rc4,
> > as it's giving exactly the same "verifier failed during log recovery"
> > stack trace:
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2013-June/026889.html
>
> Thanks. It appears that the verifiers have found corruption due to a
> flaw in log recovery, and the fix you are proposing is to stop using
> them. If we do that, we'll have no way of detecting the corruption and
> will end up hanging users of older kernels out to dry.
We've never detected it before, and it's causing regressions for
multiple people. We *can't fix it* because we can't detect the
situation sanely, and we are not leaving people with old kernels
hanging out to dry. The opposite is true: we are fucking over
current users by preventing log recovery on filesystems that will
recovery perfectly OK and have almost always recovered just fine in
the past.
> I think your suggestion that non-debug systems could warn instead of
> fail is a good one, but removing the verifier altogether is
> inappropriate.
Changing every single verifier in a non-trivial way is not something
I'm about to do for a -rc6 kernel. Removing the verifiers from log
recovery just reverts to the pre-3.8 situation, so is perfectly
acceptable short term solution while we do the more invasive verify
changes.
> Can you make the metadump available? I need to understand this better
> before I can sign off. Also: Any idea how far back this one goes?
No, I can't make the metadump available to you - it was provided
privately and not obfuscated and so you'd have to ask Dave for it.
As to how long this problem has existed? It's a zero-day bug. Like I
said, I've suspected for years that this can happen, and only now do
we have proof of it...
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:[~2013-06-14 0:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-12 2:19 [PATCH 0/3] xfs: fixes for 3.10-rc6 Dave Chinner
2013-06-12 2:19 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: don't shutdown log recovery on validation errors Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 1:04 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-13 2:08 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 22:09 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 0:13 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-06-14 12:55 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-06-14 16:09 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 16:15 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-14 19:08 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 19:18 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-14 19:44 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 19:54 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-14 20:22 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-28 18:54 ` Dave Jones
2013-06-28 19:24 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-28 19:28 ` Dave Jones
2013-06-28 19:31 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-15 0:56 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-17 14:53 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-18 1:22 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-14 16:17 ` Dave Jones
2013-06-14 16:31 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-12 2:19 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: fix implicit padding in directory and attr CRC formats Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 0:58 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-13 1:40 ` Michael L. Semon
2013-06-13 2:27 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 21:31 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-12 2:19 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: ensure btree root split sets blkno correctly Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 19:16 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 0:21 ` 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=20130614001306.GM29338@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=bpm@sgi.com \
--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