On 2018/9/26 10:09, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 09/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>> 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");
>
> Oh, yeah. :P
> I started to run all my tests with this. Let me see what will happen.
Ah, thanks, I just don't want another quota corruption again... :P
Thanks,
>
>>
>> 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
