Re: [PATCH 5/6] xfs: add xfs_verifier_error()

Eric Sandeen
2014-02-10T04:16:27Z

On 2/9/14, 9:43 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 08:33:49PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> We want to distinguish between corruption, CRC errors,
>> etc. In addition, the full stack trace on verifier errors
>> seems less than helpful; it looks more like an oops than
>> corruption.
>>
>> Create a new function to specifically alert the user to
>> verifier errors, which can differentiate between
>> EFSCORRUPTED and CRC mismatches. It doesn't dump stack
>> unless the xfs error level is turned up high.
>>
>> Define a new error message (EFSBADCRC) to clearly identify
>> CRC errors. (Defined to EILSEQ, bad byte sequence)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_error.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/xfs/xfs_error.h | 3 +++
>> fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
>> index 9995b80..08d76f4 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
>> @@ -178,3 +178,25 @@ xfs_corruption_error(
>> xfs_error_report(tag, level, mp, filename, linenum, ra);
>> xfs_alert(mp, "Corruption detected. Unmount and run xfs_repair");
>> }
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Warnings specifically for verifier errors. Differentiate CRC vs. invalid
>> + * values, and omit the stack trace unless the error level is tuned high.
>> + */
>> +void
>> +__xfs_verifier_error(
>> + const char *func,
>> + struct xfs_buf *bp)
>> +{
>> + struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
>> +
>> + xfs_alert(mp,
>> +"%sCorruption detected in %s, block 0x%llx. Unmount and run xfs_repair",
>> + bp->b_error == EFSBADCRC ? "CRC " : "", func, bp->b_bn);
>
> Perhaps if we do this:
>
> xfs_alert(mp,
> "Metadata %s detected at %pF, block 0x%llx. Unmount and run xfs_repair",
> bp->b_error == EFSBADCRC ? "CRC error"
> : "corruption", _RET_IP_, bp->b_bn);
>
> We'll get a symbol of the form caller_name+0xoffset similar to a
> stack dump. That way if we have multiple calls to a
> xfs_verifier_error() inside a single function we get something that
> tells us which call detected the error...

Hm, but the point of the switch based on error nrs was to require only
one call in each ->verifier, and ...

> Also, the use of _RET_IP_ gets rid of the need for the wrapper
> macro....

0x${SPLAT} is a lot less useful than i.e. "xfs_agi_read_verify"

Printing the _RET_IP_ requires disassembly of that particular build
to figure out where we went wrong, whereas printing __func__ makes it
clear on the initial read of the dmesg.

> i.e. we could replace all the XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN() calls in
> __xfs_dir3_data_check() with calls to xfs_verifier_error() so we can
> determine exactly what corruption check failed...

Well, I'm sympathetic to that goal, but I wonder if we can't do both;
print in plain english which verifier went bad, and also (when warranted)
print lower level details in some other manner...?

-Eric

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>