On 11.03.19 г. 3:17 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/3/11 上午7:09, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> In the case where superblock 0 at 65536 is valid but stale (older than
>> the others):
>
> Then this means either the fs is fuzzed, or the FUA implementation of
> the disk is completely screwed up.
>
> Btrfs kernel submit super blocks as the following sequence:
> 1) wait all metadata write
> 2) flush
> 3) FUA the primary superblock
SATA devices generally do not have FUA support. For example my evo 850
ssds do not support it nor does my evo 860 PRO. IMO not having
functioning FUA seems to be the norm rather than an exception.
> 4) write the backup superblocks
>
> If backup is newer than primary, then the FUA write doesn't reach disk
> before normal write.
> This means any fs could be corrupted on that disk, not only btrfs.
>
>>
>> 1. btrfs check doesn't complain, the stale super is used for the check
>> 2. when mounting, super 0 is used, no complaints at mount time, fairly
>> quickly the newer supers are overwritten
>
> The reason why kernel doesn't search backup roots is to avoid stale btrfs.
> For case like mkfs.btrfs -> do btrfs write -> mkfs.xfs -> try mount as
> btrfs again, this would cause problems.
>
> So IMHO always use the primary superblock is the designed behavior.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>>
>> Is this expected? In particular, in lieu of `btrfs rescue super`
>> behavior which considers super 0 a bad super, and offers to fix it
>> from the newer ones, and when I answer y, it replaces super 0 with
>> newer information from the other supers.
>>
>> I think the `btrfs rescue` behavior is correct. I would expect that
>> all the supers are read at mount time, and if there's discrepancy that
>> either there's code to suspiciously sanity check the latest roots in
>> the newest super, or it flat out fails to mount. Mounting based on
>> stale super data seems risky doesn't it?
>>
>
