[PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Eric Sandeen]

How dangerous is dangerous?

We could offer the suggestion of a "-d" repair, if we're
in single-user mode with the root fs mounted readonly.

This change suggests -d to repair any RO mounted fs.

Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---

diff --git a/repair/init.c b/repair/init.c
index c3f380b..a7a7613 100644
--- a/repair/init.c
+++ b/repair/init.c
@@ -97,8 +97,17 @@ xfs_init(libxfs_init_t *args)
 	else
 		args->isreadonly = LIBXFS_EXCLUSIVELY;
 
-	if (!libxfs_init(args))
+	if (!libxfs_init(args)) {
+		/* would -d be an option? */
+		if (!no_modify && !dangerously) {
+			args->isreadonly = (LIBXFS_ISINACTIVE |
+					    LIBXFS_DANGEROUSLY);
+			if (libxfs_init(args))
+				fprintf(stderr,
+_("Unmount or use -d to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));
+		}
 		do_error(_("couldn't initialize XFS library\n"));
+	}
 
 	ts_create();
 	increase_rlimit();

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Carlos Maiolino]

Hm, even in single user with a RO root filesystem, changing filesystem
on-disk filesystem structures without have them replied in memory looks
dangerous to me, you will keep data consistency since the fs is RO, but how
about memory? You might have a discrepancy between memory and disk metadata
contents causing in-memory only problems?


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:13:17AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> How dangerous is dangerous?
> 
> We could offer the suggestion of a "-d" repair, if we're
> in single-user mode with the root fs mounted readonly.
> 
> This change suggests -d to repair any RO mounted fs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/repair/init.c b/repair/init.c
> index c3f380b..a7a7613 100644
> --- a/repair/init.c
> +++ b/repair/init.c
> @@ -97,8 +97,17 @@ xfs_init(libxfs_init_t *args)
>  	else
>  		args->isreadonly = LIBXFS_EXCLUSIVELY;
>  
> -	if (!libxfs_init(args))
> +	if (!libxfs_init(args)) {
> +		/* would -d be an option? */
> +		if (!no_modify && !dangerously) {
> +			args->isreadonly = (LIBXFS_ISINACTIVE |
> +					    LIBXFS_DANGEROUSLY);
> +			if (libxfs_init(args))
> +				fprintf(stderr,
> +_("Unmount or use -d to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));
> +		}
>  		do_error(_("couldn't initialize XFS library\n"));
> +	}
>  
>  	ts_create();
>  	increase_rlimit();
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

-- 
Carlos

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Eric Sandeen]

On 11/13/13, 6:59 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> Hm, even in single user with a RO root filesystem, changing filesystem
> on-disk filesystem structures without have them replied in memory looks
> dangerous to me, you will keep data consistency since the fs is RO, but how
> about memory? You might have a discrepancy between memory and disk metadata
> contents causing in-memory only problems?
> 

The possibility is already there; it's just a question of whether we
suggest using it.  And my other patch suggests an immediate reboot
when it's done, for just those reasons.

A user needs some way to repair their root disk if they can't boot
a rescue environment... and ext2/3/4 have been doing this since forever.

I know, none of the above are exactly arguments that its' safe... :)

-Eric

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:13:17AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> How dangerous is dangerous?
>>
>> We could offer the suggestion of a "-d" repair, if we're
>> in single-user mode with the root fs mounted readonly.
>>
>> This change suggests -d to repair any RO mounted fs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/repair/init.c b/repair/init.c
>> index c3f380b..a7a7613 100644
>> --- a/repair/init.c
>> +++ b/repair/init.c
>> @@ -97,8 +97,17 @@ xfs_init(libxfs_init_t *args)
>>  	else
>>  		args->isreadonly = LIBXFS_EXCLUSIVELY;
>>  
>> -	if (!libxfs_init(args))
>> +	if (!libxfs_init(args)) {
>> +		/* would -d be an option? */
>> +		if (!no_modify && !dangerously) {
>> +			args->isreadonly = (LIBXFS_ISINACTIVE |
>> +					    LIBXFS_DANGEROUSLY);
>> +			if (libxfs_init(args))
>> +				fprintf(stderr,
>> +_("Unmount or use -d to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));
>> +		}
>>  		do_error(_("couldn't initialize XFS library\n"));
>> +	}
>>  
>>  	ts_create();
>>  	increase_rlimit();
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:55:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/13/13, 6:59 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > Hm, even in single user with a RO root filesystem, changing filesystem
> > on-disk filesystem structures without have them replied in memory looks
> > dangerous to me, you will keep data consistency since the fs is RO, but how
> > about memory? You might have a discrepancy between memory and disk metadata
> > contents causing in-memory only problems?
> > 
> 
> The possibility is already there; it's just a question of whether we
> suggest using it.  And my other patch suggests an immediate reboot
> when it's done, for just those reasons.

If you make the suggestion of using -d, then it should mention at
that point in time it's dangerous.

> A user needs some way to repair their root disk if they can't boot
> a rescue environment... and ext2/3/4 have been doing this since forever.
> 
> I know, none of the above are exactly arguments that its' safe... :)

Right, so let's make sure we don't give people any impression it is
safe :)

> >> +_("Unmount or use -d to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));

_("Unmount or use the dangerous (-d) option to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Eric Sandeen]

On 11/17/13, 1:56 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:

<snip>

> Right, so let's make sure we don't give people any impression it is
> safe :)
> 
>>>> +_("Unmount or use -d to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));
> 
> _("Unmount or use the dangerous (-d) option to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));

Good idea, will send V2.
 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

[PATCH V2] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Eric Sandeen]

We can offer the suggestion of a "-d" repair, if we're
in single-user mode with i.e. the root fs mounted readonly.

This change suggests -d to repair any RO mounted fs.

e2fsck allows this, and users are used to being able to
do it in single-user mode.  A separate patch will recommend
a reboot after repair completes.

Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---

V2: Now with more danger!

diff --git a/repair/init.c b/repair/init.c
index c3f380b..a7a7613 100644
--- a/repair/init.c
+++ b/repair/init.c
@@ -97,8 +97,17 @@ xfs_init(libxfs_init_t *args)
 	else
 		args->isreadonly = LIBXFS_EXCLUSIVELY;
 
-	if (!libxfs_init(args))
+	if (!libxfs_init(args)) {
+		/* would -d be an option? */
+		if (!no_modify && !dangerously) {
+			args->isreadonly = (LIBXFS_ISINACTIVE |
+					    LIBXFS_DANGEROUSLY);
+			if (libxfs_init(args))
+				fprintf(stderr,
+_("Unmount or use the dangerous (-d) option to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));
+		}
 		do_error(_("couldn't initialize XFS library\n"));
+	}
 
 	ts_create();
 	increase_rlimit();

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH V2] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:02:05AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> We can offer the suggestion of a "-d" repair, if we're
> in single-user mode with i.e. the root fs mounted readonly.
> 
> This change suggests -d to repair any RO mounted fs.
> 
> e2fsck allows this, and users are used to being able to
> do it in single-user mode.  A separate patch will recommend
> a reboot after repair completes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> V2: Now with more danger!

Exciting! Looks good.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH V2] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

[Rich Johnston]

This has been committed.

Thanks
--Rich

commit 03091fc253963891c728cf362c0f9700294b6dfd
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Date:   Mon Nov 18 16:02:05 2013 +0000

     xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount



_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs