On 10.10.2017 10:51, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> This patch introduces functions to repair device size related problems,
> including:
> 1) Unaligned total_bytes of dev_item
> v4.14-rc kernel introduced total_bytes alignment checker.
> However older kernel device add/shrink doesn't align these members.
> This will cause kernel warning every time dev_item get updated.
>
> Although it can be fixed by shrinking device on latest kernel or
> use manually aligned size on older kernel, a fallback method in
> btrfs-progs won't hurt.
>
> 2) Mismatch super->total_bytes
> There are some reports about unmountable fs, due to mismatched
> super->total_bytes.
> And normal kernel device shrink won't help since it only modify the
> total_bytes by the size changed, not re-calculating it.
>
> The root cause is still under investigation, but at least to fix it
> in btrfs-progs
>
> Fix all of them by manually rounding down total_bytes of each device, and
> recalculate super->total_bytes using all existing devices.
Thanks for doing this, we needed it. One minor nit in the comments but
overall:
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com>
>
> Reported-by: Asif Youssuff <yoa...@gmail.com>
> Reported-by: Rich Rauenzahn <rraue...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com>> ---
> cmds-check.c | 191
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 191 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/cmds-check.c b/cmds-check.c
> index 0c08618ed701..007781fa5d1b 100644
> --- a/cmds-check.c
> +++ b/cmds-check.c
> @@ -12885,6 +12885,197 @@ close_out:
> return ret;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Return 0 if DEV_ITEM for @device is good
> + * Return >0 if DEV_ITEM for @device has unaligned value and fixed
> + * Return <0 if we failed to fix the unaligned value
> + */
> +static int reset_one_dev_size(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + struct btrfs_device *device)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
> + struct btrfs_key key;
> + struct btrfs_path path;
> + struct btrfs_root *chunk_root = fs_info->chunk_root;
> + struct btrfs_dev_item *di;
> + u64 old_bytes = device->total_bytes;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (IS_ALIGNED(device->total_bytes, fs_info->sectorsize))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Align the in-memory total_bytes first, and use it later */
> + device->total_bytes = round_down(device->total_bytes,
> + fs_info->sectorsize);
> +
> + key.objectid = BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID;
> + key.type = BTRFS_DEV_ITEM_KEY;
> + key.offset = device->devid;
> +
> + trans = btrfs_start_transaction(chunk_root, 1);
> + if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> + error("error starting transaction: %d (%s)",
> + ret, strerror(-ret));
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + btrfs_init_path(&path);
> + ret = btrfs_search_slot(trans, chunk_root, &key, &path, 0, 1);
> + if (ret > 0) {
> + error("failed to find DEV_ITEM for devid %llu",
> + device->devid);
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + goto err;
> + }
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + error("failed to search chunk root: %d (%s)",
> + ret, strerror(-ret));
> + goto err;
> + }
> + di = btrfs_item_ptr(path.nodes[0], path.slots[0],
> + struct btrfs_dev_item);
> + btrfs_set_device_total_bytes(path.nodes[0], di, device->total_bytes);
> + btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty(path.nodes[0]);
> + ret = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans, chunk_root);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + error("failed to commit current transaction: %d (%s)",
> + ret, strerror(-ret));
> + btrfs_release_path(&path);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + btrfs_release_path(&path);
> + printf("Fixed device size for devid %llu, old size: %llu new size:
> %llu\n",
> + device->devid, old_bytes, device->total_bytes);
> + return 1;
> +
> +err:
> + /* We haven't modified anything, it's OK to commit current trans */
> + btrfs_commit_transaction(trans, chunk_root);
> + btrfs_release_path(&path);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Return 0 if super block total bytes matches with device total_bytes
> + * Return >0 if super block has mismatch total_bytes and fixed
> + * Return <0 if we failed to fix the mismatch total_bytes
> + */
> +static int reset_super_total_bytes(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
> + struct btrfs_device *device;
> + struct list_head *dev_list = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
> + u64 total_bytes = 0;
> + u64 old_bytes = btrfs_super_total_bytes(fs_info->super_copy);
> + int ret;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(device, dev_list, dev_list)
> + total_bytes += device->total_bytes;
> +
> + if (total_bytes == old_bytes)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Just in case */
> + if (!IS_ALIGNED(total_bytes, fs_info->sectorsize)) {
> + error("final total_bytes still not aligned to %u, please report
> a bug to btrfs mail list",
> + fs_info->sectorsize);
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
> +
> + btrfs_set_super_total_bytes(fs_info->super_copy, total_bytes);
> +
> + /* Commit transaction to update all super blocks */
> + trans = btrfs_start_transaction(fs_info->tree_root, 1);
> + if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> + error("error starting transaction: %d (%s)",
> + ret, strerror(-ret));
> + return ret;
> + }
> + ret = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans, fs_info->tree_root);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + error("failed to commit current transaction: %d (%s)",
> + ret, strerror(-ret));
> + return ret;
> + }
> + printf("Fixed super total bytes, old size: %llu new size: %llu\n",
> + old_bytes, total_bytes);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Repair device size related problems, including:
> + * 1) Unaligned total_bytes of dev_item
> + * v4.14-rc kernel introduced total_bytes alignment checker.
> + * However older kernel device add/shrink doesn't restrictly align
> + * these members.
> + * This will cause kernel warning everytime dev_item get updated.
> + *
> + * Although it can be fixed by shrinking device on latest kernel or
> + * use manually aligned size on older kernel, a fallback method in
> + * btrfs-progs won't hurt.
> + *
> + * 2) Mismatch super->total_bytes
> + * Due to similar situation, super->total_bytes can be mismatch with
> + * total size of all devices.
> + * This will cause the filesystem unable to be mounted with v4.14-rc
> kernel.
The commit which introduced the code preventing mounting can be traced
back to 4.7: 99e3ecfcb9f4 ("Btrfs: add more validation checks for
superblock"). I'd say remove the version information or fix it to point
to v4.7.
> + *
> + * Add such fixer in btrfs-progs as a fallback method.
> + *
> + * Fix all of them by manually rounding down total_bytes of each device, and
> + * recalculate super->total_bytes using all existing devices.
> + */
> +static int reset_devs_size(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_device *device;
> + struct list_head *dev_list = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
> + bool have_bad_value = false;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Seed device is not support yet */
> + if (fs_info->fs_devices->seed) {
> + error("resetting device size with seed device is not supported
> yet");
> + return -ENOTTY;
> + }
> +
> + /* All devices must be on-line before reparing */
> + if (list_empty(dev_list)) {
> + error("no device found");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + list_for_each_entry(device, dev_list, dev_list) {
> + if (device->fd == -1 || !device->writeable) {
> + error("device with devid %llu is missing or not
> writeable",
> + device->devid);
> + error("resetting device size needs all device(s)
> present and writeable");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Repair total_bytes of each device */
> + list_for_each_entry(device, dev_list, dev_list) {
> + ret = reset_one_dev_size(fs_info, device);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + if (ret > 0)
> + have_bad_value = true;
> + }
> +
> + /* Repair super total_byte */
> + ret = reset_super_total_bytes(fs_info);
> + if (ret > 0)
> + have_bad_value = true;
> + if (have_bad_value) {
> + printf("Fixed unaligned/mismatch total_bytes for superblock and
> device item\n");
> + ret = 1;
> + } else {
> + printf("No device size related problem found\n");
> + ret = 0;
> + }
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> const char * const cmd_check_usage[] = {
> "btrfs check [options] <device>",
> "Check structural integrity of a filesystem (unmounted).",
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
