On Thu 24-08-23 20:56:14, Baokun Li wrote:
> On 2023/8/24 18:08, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 24-08-23 10:27:46, Baokun Li wrote:
> > > Hello, Jan!
> > >
> > > On 2023/8/24 1:05, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 17-08-23 16:18:28, Baokun Li wrote:
> > > > > After 7d79b40b ("e2fsck: adjust quota counters when clearing orphaned
> > > > > inodes"), we load all the quotas before we process the orphaned inodes,
> > > > > and when we load the quotas, we check the checsum of the bbitmap for each
> > > > > group. If one of the bbitmap checksums is wrong, the following error will
> > > > > be reported:
> > > > >
> > > > > “Error initializing quota context in support library:
> > > > > Block bitmap checksum does not match bitmap”
> > > > >
> > > > > But loading quotas comes before checking the current superblock for the
> > > > > EXT2_ERROR_FS flag, which makes it impossible to use e2fsck to repair any
> > > > > image that contains orphan inodes and has the wrong bbitmap checksum.
> > > > > So delaying quota loading until after the EXT2_ERROR_FS judgment avoids
> > > > > the above problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > This certainly looks better but I wonder if there still isn't a problem if
> > > > the bitmap checksums are wrong but EXT2_ERROR_FS is not set. Shouldn't we
> > > > rather move the initialization of the quota files after the call to
> > > > e2fsck_read_bitmaps()?
> > > >
> > > > Honza
> > > When the bitmap checksums are wrong but EXT2_ERROR_FS is not set, we must
> > > have lost some data (error flag or group descriptor or bitmap), so there
> > > is something wrong with the kernel at this time, so I don't think we
> > > should fix the image directly, but rather let the user realize that
> > > something is wrong with the filesystem logic.
> > I agree it means there is a problem somewhere (the storage, the kernel, or
> > similar). But just ignoring bitmap checksums in release_orphan_inodes() is
> > exactly how e2fsck behaves on filesystems without quota feature so I see no
> > reason for quota feature to change that because the inconsistency has
> > nothing to do with quotas...
> >
> > > Moreover, if we don't care how this happened, but just want to fix the
> > > image, we only need to run "e2fsck -a" twice. After merging in the
> > > current patch, we always empty the orphan list before loading the quotas,
> > > and EXT2_ERROR_FS is set when loading the quotas fails, so this will be
> > > fixed the second time you run e2fsck. It will not happen that every
> > > e2fsck will fail like it did before.
> > I see, you're right so it isn't as bad as I originally thought but still my
> > argument above holds - IMO e2fsck should treat wrong bitmap checksums the
> > same way with and without the quota feature.
> >
> > Honza
> The original flow that went wrong here is as follows：
> e2fsck
> e2fsck_run_ext3_journal
> check_super_block
> release_orphan_inodes
> e2fsck_read_all_quotas
> quota_read_all_dquots
> quota_file_open
> ext2fs_read_bitmaps
> ext2fs_rw_bitmaps
> read_bitmaps_range
> read_bitmaps_range_start
> ext2fs_block_bitmap_csum_verify
> !!! error
> e2fsck_run
>
> Yes, the inconsistency has nothing to do with quota, but quota is loaded
> here to keep track of space changes during the normal processing of
> orphan list. If quota was not loaded, we would not have read and check
> bitmaps until Pass5, and we had already done a lot of checking and
> tweaking of inodes, blocks, and dirs before Pass5, and the bitmaps
> inconsistency may have been fixed during that time.
This is not true. release_orphan_inodes() calls e2fsck_read_bitmaps() which
loads all the bitmaps while ignoring checksum failures. This is needed so
that blocks released during orphan cleanup are properly tracked as free.
All I want to do is to move the call to e2fsck_read_all_quotas() a bit
further than you moved it to a place after the e2fsck_read_bitmaps()
call...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
