Re: [PATCH 4/4] f2fs/009: detect and repair nlink corruption

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:59:23PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 3/10/25 16:00, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 04:18:09PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> This is a regression test to check whether fsck can handle corrupted
> >> nlinks correctly, it uses inject.f2fs to inject nlinks w/ wrong value,
> >> and expects fsck.f2fs can detect such corruption and do the repair.
> >>
> >> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> > 

[snip]

> >> +	$F2FS_INJECT_PROG --node --mb i_links --nid $ino --val $nlink $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full
> >> +	if [ $? != 0 ]; then
> >> +		exit
> >> +	fi
> >> +
> >> +	export FSCK_OPTIONS="-f"
> > 
> > You've set below code in _repair_scratch_fs():
> > 
> >     f2fs)
> >         fsck -t $FSTYP -f $SCRATCH_DEV
> >         ;;
> > 
> > The FSCK_OPTIONS="-f" is useless.
> > 
> >> +	_repair_scratch_fs >> $seqres.full
> >> +	if [ $? != 1 ]; then
> > 
> > What does $?=1 mean? Does $?=1 mean finding corruption and fixed, $?=0 mean no corruption?
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> > 
> > If you want to detect there's a corruption, then fix it, then check if it's fixed. How about
> > calling _check_scratch_fs at first to get the corruption error you expect, then call
> > _repair_scratch_fs to fix it. Then call _check_scratch_fs to make sure the corruption is
> > fixed?
> > 
> > Something likes (just a rough example)
> > 
> > _check_scratch_fs >>$seqres.full 2>&1 && _fail "can't find corruption"
> 
> You mean this?
> 
> export FSCK_OPTIONS="--dry-run"
> _check_scratch_fs >>$seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "can't find corruption"

No,

> 
> We need to export FSCK_OPTIONS w/ "--dry-run", otherwise _check_scratch_fs
> will be stuck once it detects corruption.

If so, you might need to give _check_scratch_fs (and _check_test_fs) a f2fs
specific handling. Due to _check_scratch_fs aims to do "check" only,
_repair_scratch_fs aims to do "repair", they have different target. When
we call _check_scratch_fs, we hope it reports pass or corruption then return,
neither "repair" nor "stuck". So if I understand correct, you might need:

_check_scratch_fs()
{
	case $FSTYP in
	...
	f2fs)
		FSCK_OPTIONS="--dry-run" _check_generic_filesystem $device
		;;
	...
}

Or you have any better way to do f2fs check :)

Thanks,
Zorro

> 
> > _repair_scratch_fs >> $seqres.full
> > _check_scratch_fs
> > 
> >> +		_fail "fsck can not detect and repair zero nlink corruption "$i
> >> +		exit
> >> +	fi
> >> +
> >> +	export FSCK_OPTIONS=""
> >> +	_check_scratch_fs >> $seqres.full
> > 
> > I think _check_scratch_fs outputs nothing if run passed, right?
> > 
> > _check_scratch_fs calls _check_generic_filesystem for f2fs, the FSCK_OPTIONS
> > is "null" by default, so above FSCK_OPTIONS="" is useless too.
> > 
> >> +	if [ $? != 0 ]; then
> >> +		_fail "fsck hasn't fixed nlink corruption "$i
> >> +		exit
> >> +	fi
> >> +
> >> +	_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full
> > 
> > ">> $seqres.full" isn't necessary.
> 
> Will update according to you comments, thanks a lot.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> >> +	_scratch_unmount
> >> +done
> >> +
> >> +echo "Silence is golden"
> >> +
> >> +status=0
> >> +exit
> >> diff --git a/tests/f2fs/009.out b/tests/f2fs/009.out
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 00000000..7e977155
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tests/f2fs/009.out
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> >> +QA output created by 009
> >> +Silence is golden
> >> -- 
> >> 2.48.1
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux