From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: Question about 67dc288c ("xfs: ensure verifiers are attached to recovered buffers")
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:49:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171013184916.GS7122@magnolia> (raw)
Hi all,
I have a question about 67dc288c ("xfs: ensure verifiers are attached to
recovered buffers"). I was analyzing a scrub failure on generic/392
with a v4 filesystem which stems from xfs_scrub_buffer_recheck (it's in
scrub part 4) being unable to find a b_ops attached to the AGF buffer
and signalling error.
The pattern I observe is that when log recovery runs on a v4 filesystem,
we call some variant of xfs_buf_read with a NULL ops parameter. The
buffer therefore gets created and read without any verifiers.
Eventually, xlog_recover_validate_buf_type gets called, and on a v5
filesystem we come back and attach verifiers and all is well. However,
on a v4 filesystem the function returns without doing anything, so the
xfs_buf just sits around in memory with no verifier. Subsequent
read/log/relse patterns can write anything they want without write
verifiers to check that.
If the v4 fs didn't need log recovery, the buffers get created with
b_ops as you'd expect.
My question is, shouldn't xlog_recover_validate_buf_type unconditionally
set b_ops and save the "if (hascrc)" bits for the part that ensures the
LSN is up to date?
It seems like a bad idea to let buffers sit around with no verifier.
The original patch adding this function is d75afeb3 ("xfs: add buffer
types to directory and attribute buffers") and looks like it was
supposed to do this for any filesystem, but I wasn't around to know the
evolution of that part of xlog.
--D
next reply other threads:[~2017-10-13 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-13 18:49 Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2017-10-14 11:55 ` Question about 67dc288c ("xfs: ensure verifiers are attached to recovered buffers") Brian Foster
2017-10-14 19:05 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-10-16 10:37 ` Brian Foster
2017-10-16 21:29 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-16 22:18 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-10-17 14:53 ` Brian Foster
2017-10-20 15:16 ` Brian Foster
2017-10-20 16:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-10-20 16:59 ` Brian Foster
2017-10-20 18:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-10-21 6:10 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-10-23 13:08 ` Brian Foster
2017-10-14 22:07 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-16 10:38 ` Brian Foster
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=20171013184916.GS7122@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).