On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:36:39AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 01:14:54AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Ran into an ext4 regression when testing upgrades to 5.9-rc kernels:
> > >
> > > Commit e7bfb5c9bb3d ("ext4: handle add_system_zone() failure in
> > > ext4_setup_system_zone()") breaks mounting of read-only ext4 filesystems
> > > with intentionally overlapping bitmap blocks.
> > >
> > > On an always-read-only filesystem explicitly marked with
> > > EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS, prior to that commit, it's safe to
> > > point all the block and inode bitmaps to a single block
> >
> > LOL, WHAT?
> >
> > I didn't know shared blocks applied to fs metadata. I thought that
> > "shared" only applied to file extent maps being able to share physical
> > blocks.
>
> The flag isn't documented very well yet, but since it specifically
> forces the filesystem to always be mounted read-only, the bitmaps really
> shouldn't matter at all. (In an ideal world, a permanently read-only
> filesystem should be able to omit all the bitmaps entirely. Pointing
> them all to a single disk block is the next best thing.)
I disagree; creating undocumented forks of an existing ondisk format
(especially one that presents as inconsistent metadata to regular tools)
is creating a ton of pain for future users and maintainers when the
incompat forks collide with the canonical implementation(s).
(Granted, I don't know if you /created/ this new interpretation of the
feature flag or if you've merely been stuck with it...)
I don't say that as a theoretical argument -- you've just crashed right
into this, because nobody knew that the in-kernel block validity doesn't
know how to deal with this other than to error out.
> > Could /somebody/ please document the ondisk format changes that are
> > associated with this feature?
>
> I pretty much had to sort it out by looking at a combination of
> e2fsprogs and the kernel, and a lot of experimentation, until I ended up
> with something that the kernel was completely happy with without a
> single complaint.
>
> I'd be happy to write up a summary of the format.
Seems like a good idea, particularly since you're asking for a format
change that requires kernel support and the ondisk format documentation
lives under Documentation/. That said...
> I'd still really like to see this patch applied for 5.9, to avoid having
> filesystems that an old kernel can mount but a new one can't. This still
> seems like a regression to me.
>
> > > of all 1s,
> > > because a read-only filesystem will never allocate or free any blocks or
> > > inodes.
> >
> > All 1s? So the inode bitmap says that every inode table slot is in use,
> > even if the inode record itself says it isn't?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What does e2fsck -n
> > think about that kind of metadata inconsistency?
>
> If you set up the rest of the metadata consistently with it (for
> instance, 0 free blocks and 0 free inodes), you'll only get a single
> complaint, from the e2fsck equivalent of block_validity. See
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=956509 for details on
> that;
...Ted shot down this whole thing six months ago.
The Debian bug database is /not/ the designated forum to discuss changes
to the ondisk format; linux-ext4 is.
--D
> with that fixed, e2fsck wouldn't complain at all. The kernel,
> prior to 5.9-rc2, doesn't have a single complaint, whether at mount,
> unmount, or read of every file and directory on the filesystem.
>
> The errors you got in your e2fsck run came because you just overrode the
> bitmaps, but didn't make the rest of the metadata consistent with that.
> I can provide a sample filesystem if that would help.
>
> - Josh
