On 2018/9/26 9:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/26, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2018/9/26 8:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/21, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> On 2018/9/21 5:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>> On 09/20, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>> On 2018/9/20 6:38, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>> On 09/19, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2018/9/19 0:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/18 10:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/18 9:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/13, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/13 3:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 9:40, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 9:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 8:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 4:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fsck.f2fs is able to recover the quota structure, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roll-forward recovery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can recover it based on previous user information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get it, both fsck and kernel recover quota file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based all inodes' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uid/gid/prjid, if {x}id didn't change, wouldn't those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two recovery result be the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that, but had to add this, since I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountering quota errors right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after getting some files recovered. And, I thought it'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it more safe to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fsck after roll-forward recovery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, let me test again without this patch for a while. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, I just got a fsck failure right after some files >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recovered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make sure, do you test with "f2fs: guarantee journalled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quota data by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint"? if not, I think there is no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs can recover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote info into correct quote file, because, in last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint, quota file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may was corrupted/inconsistent. Right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, I forget to mention that, I add a patch to fsck to let it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG flag, and by default, fsck will fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrupted quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file if the flag is set, but w/o this flag, quota file is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still corrupted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected by fsck, I guess there is bug in v8. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In v8, there are two cases we didn't guarantee quota file's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistence: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush time in block_operation exceed a threshold. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. dquot subsystem error occurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For above case, fsck should repair the quota file by default. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I got another failure and it seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG was not set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the recovery. So, we have something missing in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of quota updates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I checked the code, just found one suspected place: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> find_fsync_dnodes() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - f2fs_recover_inode_page >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - inc_valid_node_count >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - dquot_reserve_block dquot info is not initialized now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - add_fsync_inode >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - dquot_initialize >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should reserve block for inode block after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dquot_initialize(), can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you confirm this? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me test this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >From b90260bc577fe87570b1ef7b134554a8295b1f6c Mon Sep 17 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >00:00:00 2001 >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:14:41 -0700 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: count inode block for recovered files >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If a new file is recovered, we missed to reserve its inode block. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I remember, in order to keep line with other filesystem, unlike >>>>>>>>>>>> on-disk, we >>>>>>>>>>>> have to keep backward compatibilty, in memory we don't account >>>>>>>>>>>> block number >>>>>>>>>>>> for f2fs' inode block, but only account inode number for it, so >>>>>>>>>>>> here like >>>>>>>>>>>> we did in inc_valid_node_count(), we don't need to do this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I just hit the error again w/o your patch. Another one coming >>>>>>>>>>> to my mind >>>>>>>>>>> is that caused by uid/gid change during recovery. Let me try out >>>>>>>>>>> your patch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I guess we should update dquot and inode's uid/gid atomically under >>>>>>>>>> lock_op() in f2fs_setattr() to prevent corruption on sys quota file. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> v9 can pass all xfstest cases and por_fsstress case w/ sys quota file >>>>>>>>>> enabled, but w/ normal quota file, I got one regression reported by >>>>>>>>>> generic/232, I fixed in v10, will do some tests and release it later. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that, my fsck can fix corrupted quota file automatically once >>>>>>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG is set. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hit failures again with your v9 w/ sysfile quota and modified fsck >>>>>>>>> to detect >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's strange, in my environment, before v9, I always encounter >>>>>>>> corrupted >>>>>>>> quota sysfile after step 9), after v9, I never hit failure again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) enable fault injection >>>>>>>> 2) run fsstress >>>>>>>> 3) call shutdowon >>>>>>>> 4) kill fsstress >>>>>>>> 5) unmount >>>>>>>> 6) fsck >>>>>>>> 7) mount >>>>>>>> 8) umount >>>>>>>> 9) fsck >>>>>>>> 10) go 1). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG to fix the partition. Note that, if I set >>>>>>>>> NEED_FSCK >>>>>>>>> flag in roll-forward recovery, everything is fine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do the test based on codes in my git tree, could you check the result >>>>>>>> again based on my code? in where I just disable nat_bits recovery, not >>>>>>>> sure, in step 6) fsck can break some thing in image. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chao/linux.git/log/?h=f2fs-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, I just send the fsck code, could you check that too? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And I'd like to know your mount option and mkfs option, could you list >>>>>>>> for me? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm just doing this. >>>>>>> https://github.com/jaegeuk/xfstests-f2fs/blob/f2fs/run.sh#L220 >>>>>> >>>>>> I just sent one patch to fix POR issue which missed to recover uid/gid of >>>>>> inode. >>>>>> >>>>>> [PATCH] f2fs: fix to recover inode's uid/gid during POR >>>>>> >>>>>> After applying this patch, I can reproduce sys quota file corruption... >>>>>> let >>>>>> me figure out the solution. >>>>> >>>>> Okay. >>>> >>>> Could you try v11, no quota corruption in my test now. >>> >>> Chao, >>> >>> I missed your fsck patch to recover this. Could you post it as well? >> >> Could you check below one? >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/988210/ > > It'd be worth to show the flag in print_cp_state.
That patch has already added that? diff --git a/fsck/mount.c b/fsck/mount.c index 6a3382dbd449..21a39a7222c6 100644 --- a/fsck/mount.c +++ b/fsck/mount.c @@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ void print_ckpt_info(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) void print_cp_state(u32 flag) { MSG(0, "Info: checkpoint state = %x : ", flag); + if (flag & CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG) + MSG(0, "%s", " quota_need_fsck"); Thanks, > >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you test v9 first? I didn't encounter quota corruption with >>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>> testcase right now. Will check it in cell phone environment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 5 +++++ >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> index 56d34193a74b..bff5cf730e13 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ static struct fsync_inode_entry >>>>>>>>>>>>> *add_fsync_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >>>>>>>>>>>>> err = dquot_alloc_inode(inode); >>>>>>>>>>>>> if (err) >>>>>>>>>>>>> goto err_out; >>>>>>>>>>>>> + err = dquot_reserve_block(inode, 1); >>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (err) { >>>>>>>>>>>>> + dquot_drop(inode); >>>>>>>>>>>>> + goto err_out; >>>>>>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> entry = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(fsync_entry_slab, GFP_F2FS_ZERO); >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>> >>> . >>> > > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel