on 2019/10/15 14:27, Yang Xu wrote:
on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the situation
that mount
operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got the
mismatched output,
as below:
But why did the output mismatch? Did the fs heal itself? Did
allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt? Is the
assignment logic in the loop broken?
The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the corrupted
xfs
and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0.
The fs doesn't heal ifself.
allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt.
You can see this url
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b
eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file.
commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse
touch) and
new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs. Or, I misunderstand
this case?
How old is the kernel? At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch
to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion. That
required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's
behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts
the finobt.
I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64.
I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free
inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 76d771b4
("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits to mount.
I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it
looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests.
Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken
=0. Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount
and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount.
I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you
think about it?
ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment
operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced.
Hi Darrick
Do you have some questions on this patch?
Hi Eryu
What do you think about this patch(I only want to keep xfs/097
consistent with xfs/087).
Thanks
Yang Xu
--D
--D
-----------------------------------
+ check fs
+ corrupt image
+ mount image && modify files
-broken: 1
+broken: 0
+ repair fs
+ mount image (2)
------------------------------------
It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when
_try_scratch_mount
succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation.
Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/xfs/097 | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097
index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/097
+++ b/tests/xfs/097
@@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done
echo "+ mount image && modify files"
broken=1
if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then
-
- broken=0
for x in `seq 65 70`; do
touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0
done
--
2.18.1
