From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8D67F3F for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 21:43:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26279AC001 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:43:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XFJ1fMvs5f0hx8FH for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:43:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:43:21 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] xfs: add xfs_verifier_error() Message-ID: <20140210034321.GR13647@dastard> References: <52F83630.4020008@redhat.com> <52F83A8D.7030506@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52F83A8D.7030506@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 08:33:49PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > We want to distinguish between corruption, CRC errors, > etc. In addition, the full stack trace on verifier errors > seems less than helpful; it looks more like an oops than > corruption. > > Create a new function to specifically alert the user to > verifier errors, which can differentiate between > EFSCORRUPTED and CRC mismatches. It doesn't dump stack > unless the xfs error level is turned up high. > > Define a new error message (EFSBADCRC) to clearly identify > CRC errors. (Defined to EILSEQ, bad byte sequence) > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_error.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > fs/xfs/xfs_error.h | 3 +++ > fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c > index 9995b80..08d76f4 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c > @@ -178,3 +178,25 @@ xfs_corruption_error( > xfs_error_report(tag, level, mp, filename, linenum, ra); > xfs_alert(mp, "Corruption detected. Unmount and run xfs_repair"); > } > + > +/* > + * Warnings specifically for verifier errors. Differentiate CRC vs. invalid > + * values, and omit the stack trace unless the error level is tuned high. > + */ > +void > +__xfs_verifier_error( > + const char *func, > + struct xfs_buf *bp) > +{ > + struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount; > + > + xfs_alert(mp, > +"%sCorruption detected in %s, block 0x%llx. Unmount and run xfs_repair", > + bp->b_error == EFSBADCRC ? "CRC " : "", func, bp->b_bn); Perhaps if we do this: xfs_alert(mp, "Metadata %s detected at %pF, block 0x%llx. Unmount and run xfs_repair", bp->b_error == EFSBADCRC ? "CRC error" : "corruption", _RET_IP_, bp->b_bn); We'll get a symbol of the form caller_name+0xoffset similar to a stack dump. That way if we have multiple calls to a xfs_verifier_error() inside a single function we get something that tells us which call detected the error... Also, the use of _RET_IP_ gets rid of the need for the wrapper macro.... i.e. we could replace all the XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN() calls in __xfs_dir3_data_check() with calls to xfs_verifier_error() so we can determine exactly what corruption check failed... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs