Re: [PATCH v1 14/17] xfs: Add the parent pointer support to the superblock version 5.

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 05:32:36PM -0700, Alli wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-06-16 at 16:03 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 02:41:57AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> > > [dchinner: forward ported and cleaned up]
> > > [achender: rebased and added parent pointer attribute to
> > >            compatible attributes mask]
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@oracle.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h | 14 +++++++++-----
> > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_fs.h     |  1 +
> > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c     |  2 ++
> > >  fs/xfs/xfs_super.c         |  4 ++++
> > >  4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
> > > b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
> > > index 96976497306c..e85d6b643622 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
> > > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ struct xfs_ifork;
> > >  #define	XFS_SB_VERSION2_OKBITS		\
> > >  	(XFS_SB_VERSION2_LAZYSBCOUNTBIT	| \
> > >  	 XFS_SB_VERSION2_ATTR2BIT	| \
> > > +	 XFS_SB_VERSION2_PARENTBIT	| \
> > >  	 XFS_SB_VERSION2_PROJID32BIT	| \
> > >  	 XFS_SB_VERSION2_FTYPE)
> > 
> > No need for a v4 filesystem format feature bit - this is v4 only.
> Ok, I ended up having to add this in the rebase or we get an "SB
> validate failed".  I think it has to go over in
> xfs_sb_validate_v5_features next to the manual crc bit check.  Will
> move

Ah, I meant that parent pointers are a v5 only feature, and so we
don't need a "v4 only" feature bit for it. As it is, we can't use
that specific bit because SGI shipped a version of parent pointers
on v4 filesystems on IRIX under that feature bit that was broken and
subsequently recalled and killed. Essentially, that means
XFS_SB_VERSION2_PARENTBIT is blacklisted and cannot ever be used by
upstream kernels.

> > > @@ -353,11 +354,13 @@ xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(
> > >  #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT   (1 << 1)		/*
> > > reverse map btree */
> > >  #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK  (1 << 2)		/*
> > > reflinked files */
> > >  #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT (1 << 3)		/*
> > > inobt block counts */
> > > +#define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_PARENT	(1 << 4)		/*
> > > parent inode ptr */
> > >  #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_ALL \
> > > -		(XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FINOBT | \
> > > -		 XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT | \
> > > -		 XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK| \
> > > -		 XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT)
> > > +		(XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FINOBT  | \
> > > +		 XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT  | \
> > > +		 XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK | \
> > > +		 XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT| \
> > > +		 XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_PARENT)
> > 
> > I'm not sure this is a RO Compat feature - we added an attribute
> > namespace flag on disk, and the older kernels do not know about
> > that (i.e. we changed XFS_ATTR_NSP_ONDISK_MASK). This may result in
> > parent pointer attrs being exposed as user attrs rather than being
> > hidden, or maybe parent pointer attrs being seen as corrupt because
> > they have a flag that isn't defined set, etc.
> > 
> > Hence I'm not sure that this classification is correct.
> 
> Gosh, I'm sure there was a reason we did this, but what ever it was
> goes all the way back in the first re-appearance of the set back in
> 2018 and I just cant remember the discussion at the time.  It may have
> just been done to get mkfs working and we just never got to reviewing
> it.
> 
> Should we drop it and just use XFS_SB_VERSION2_PARENTBIT?

No, it needs to be a v5 feature bit - create a v5 parent pointer
filesystem, create some files on it, and then go an mount it on a
kernel that doesn't have PP support. If you can see the parent
pointer attributes from userspace as "user.<binary garbage>"
attributes, then we need to use an INCOMPAT feature bit rather than
a RO_COMPAT bit.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com