From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE77C433C1 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 21:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872A360232 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 21:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229555AbhC2VIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:08:12 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54364 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231124AbhC2VHr (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:07:47 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85B7161976; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 21:07:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1617052067; bh=Zh/V0+Y6y2RZV5xzOqCWO5hqJJeqD26oJpOLbmJ1z6o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OyMrbs0YOlku7I1J2144bclDk0iUHdDhHylIRF2VfGZ9+fv+meYCeRnbcXHD7xt5s esSP6SEoV7irrZTsRHakW2MhzKX/3u/hccAOhp2zFfsZ7duiqGnEeiN4oVQMrr/omz eetO8yFxbUAy+Rp2Lrh4EEUcrdI+yHkiUTYMFDdRPnlJFJk+KD//2OticgcbskYtE1 IbJewvLJYNvUyC50ZD8sqHPCbYF6PFJWkNzuNgTjsFaR9p4j1lEjYIt0I++Vamo/kn 2hVoZVhSnST79f/zsmmY34gAl8asYZYNAhSHaUJrKqoYpNkfr46/MlO3bC7zDy8FzE Bm4PA82uHOOSA== Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:07:47 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Dave Chinner Cc: Brian Foster , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner Subject: Re: attr fork related fstests failures on for-next Message-ID: <20210329210747.GI4090233@magnolia> References: <20210329183120.GH4090233@magnolia> <20210329204828.GP63242@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210329204828.GP63242@dread.disaster.area> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:48:28AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:31:20AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:16:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm seeing a couple different fstests failures on current for-next that > > > appear to be associated with e6a688c33238 ("xfs: initialise attr fork on > > > inode create"). The first is xfs_check complaining about sb versionnum > > > bits on various tests: > > > > > > generic/003 16s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c) > > > (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/003.full for details) > > > # cat results/generic/003.full > > > ... > > > _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c) > > > *** xfs_check output *** > > > sb versionnum missing attr bit 10 > > > *** end xfs_check output > > > > FWIW I think this because that commit sets up an attr fork without > > setting ATTR and ATTR2 in sb_version like xfs_bmap_add_attrfork does... > > Maybe, but mkfs.xfs sets ATTR2 by default and has for a long time. The xfs_check regression is a result of xfs_db being too stupid to recognize ATTR2. > I'm not seeing this fail on either v4 or v5 filesystems on for-next > with a current xfsprogs (5.11.0), so what environment is this test > failing in? I /think/ any environment where xfs_create_need_xattr returns true is enough to reproduce it; I triggered it by making that function reproduce unconditionally and kicking off anything that runs mknod to create a block device inode. --D > SECTION -- xfs > FSTYP -- xfs (debug) > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP > PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021 > MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1 > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch > > generic/003 11s ... 11s > Passed all 1 tests > Xunit report: /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/result.xml > > SECTION -- xfs_v4 > FSTYP -- xfs (debug) > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP > PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021 > MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m crc=0 /dev/pmem1 > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch > > generic/003 11s ... 11s > Passed all 1 tests > > > > With xfs_check bypassed, repair eventually complains about some attr > > > forks. The first point I hit this variant is generic/117: > > > > > > generic/117 9s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r) > > > (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/117.full for details) > > > # cat results//generic/117.full > > > ... > > > _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r) > > > *** xfs_repair -n output *** > > > ... > > > Phase 3 - for each AG... > > > - scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists... > > > - process known inodes and perform inode discovery... > > > - agno = 0 > > > bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 135, should be 1 > > > would have cleared inode 135 > > > bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 142, should be 1 > > > would have cleared inode 142 > > > > ...and I think this is because xfs_default_attroffset doesn't set the > > correct value for device files. For those kinds of files, xfs_repair > > requires the data fork to be exactly 8 bytes. > > Again, doesn't fail with xfsprogs 5.11.0 here for either v4 or v5 > filesystems... > > SECTION -- xfs > FSTYP -- xfs (debug) > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP > PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021 > MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1 > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch > > generic/117 1s ... 2s > Passed all 1 tests > Xunit report: /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/result.xml > > SECTION -- xfs_v4 > FSTYP -- xfs (debug) > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP > PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021 > MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m crc=0 /dev/pmem1 > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch > > generic/117 2s ... 2s > Passed all 1 tests > > I'm going to need more information on what environment these > failures are being generated in. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com