From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58592 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751696AbdF3DoH (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:44:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:44:05 +0800 From: Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/xfs: test for log recovery failure after tail overwrite Message-ID: <20170630034405.GX23360@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1497631473-14278-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <1497631579-14454-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1497631579-14454-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Hi Brian, On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:46:19PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > XFS is susceptible to log recovery problems if the fs crashes under > certain circumstances. If the tail has been pinned for long enough > to the log to fill and the next batch of log buffer submissions > happen to fail, the filesystem shutsdown having potentially > overwritten part of the range between the last good tail->head range > in the log. This causes log recovery to fail with crc mismatch or > invalid log record errors. > > This problem is not yet fixed and thus known/expected to fail. At > this time, this test serves as a reminder that the problem exists > and a reproducer for future verification purposes. Note that this > problem is currently only reproducible with larger (non-default) log > buffer sizes (i.e., '-o logbsize=256k') or smaller block sizes (1k). > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster > --- > > Hi all, > > This patch uses the XFS debug kernel mechanism recently posted for > review[1] to reproduce an XFS log recovery problem. Note that this test > depends on the aforementioned patch and thus should not be merged > until/unless the corresponding kernel patch is merged. Any decision made on the kernel side patch? Sorry, I'm a bit lost on the kernel side discussions. Thanks, Eryu