On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 08:25:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/13/17 7:35 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
> >> + fprintf(stderr,
> >> +_("%s: device %s AG count is insane, but could be %u. Limiting reads to AG 0.\n"),
> >> + progname, fsdevice, dblocks / sbp->sb_agblocks);
> >> + } else {
> >> + fprintf(stderr,
> >> +_("%s: device %s AG count is insane. Limiting reads to AG 0.\n"),
> >> + progname, fsdevice);
> >> + }
> > For reasons like the above, I think xfs_db shouldn't be in the business
> > of repair like validation (xfs_check notwithstanding). That said,
> > dropping into a fixed single AG mode seems less risky than trying to
> > surmise a valid geometry. I'd get rid of the "this might be your
> > agcount" messaging entirely though and just replace it with something
> > that explicitly states the filesystem is corrupted, the runtime geometry
> > is invalid and that the user should probably run xfs_repair before doing
> > anything.
>
> So keep in mind that xfs_db is for people with super xfs powers. (*)
>
> I wouldn't suggest repair, I'd start with 1 ag to avoid the OOM, state
> that clearly, and punt the problem to the admin with no other specific
> suggestions.
>
> > I still like the idea of the single AG mode thing as a command line flag
> > rather than default behavior because it requires user acknowledgement,
> > but this is a debug tool after all, so I'll defer to Eric on that. I do
> > think that if we create this kind of invalid runtime mode, this should
> > be split into two patches. First, a bugfix patch for the core OOM
> > problem (i.e., detect a wacky superblock and exit). Second, replace the
> > exit with the single AG runtime mode thing.
>
> Well, the problem with a flag, I think, is that you might have already
> unwittingly OOMed your box to find out that you need it.
> Rebooting to try again with a flag sucks.
>
I don't see how that is relevant. I'm not suggesting a
--please-don't-oom-in-case-of-corruption flag. :) As mentioned
previously, I think the bug fix here is a simple patch to detect the
bogus superblock and exit gracefully rather than go off the rails and
end up OOM killed.
>From there the OOM is irrelevant and we can optionally enhance xfs_db to
try and allow it to run in such situations. To be honest, I'm perfectly
happy for xfs_db to exit gracefully in this situation and to leave it at
that. I think the majority of cases where this problem occurs, the next
logical step is to run xfs_repair. I suggested the flag approach more
because I think it's more appropriate to do things like fabricate fs
geometry behind a flag rather than by default. The larger point is that
if we want this kind of enhancement, it should probably be driven more
by a use case than an unfortunate (and probably rare) bug. I don't see
why we need to complicate the bug fix with the fancy enhancement.
Brian
> (*) unless you are invoking it via xfs_admin.sh, dammit. We sure wouldn't
> want xfs_admin to exit happily, having updated only one AG. Dammit!
>
> Perhaps it should set exitcode, and then xfs_admin could do something
> like:
>
> xfs_db -c quit $DEV
>
> first, and check that db is able to initialize sanely before using it again
> to perform normal admin functions.
>
> -Eric
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
