On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 05:12:36PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 4/17/17 3:57 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:45:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > > This fix seems fine to me, but I'm wondering if this code may have
> > > issues with other kinds of misalignment between the directory blocks and
> > > underlying bmap extents as well. For example, what happens if we end up
> > > with something like the following on an 8k dir fsb fs?
> > >
> > > 0:[0,xxx,3,0]
> > > 1:[3,xxx,1,0]
> > >
> > > ... or ...
> > >
> > > 0:[0,xxx,3,0]
> > > 1:[3,xxx,3,0]
> >
> > Well, as far as that goes it won't be an issue; for 8k dir block sizes
> > we will allocate an extent map with room for 10 extents, and we'll go
> > well beyond the above extents which cross directory block boundaries.
> >
> > > ...
> > > N:[...]
> > >
> > > Am I following correctly that we may end up assuming the wrong mapping
> > > for the second dir fsb and/or possibly skipping blocks?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, this code is only managing the read-ahead state
> > by looking at these cached extents. We keep track of our position within
> > that allocated array of mappings - this bug just stepped off the end
> > while doing so.
> >
> > Stopping at the correct point should keep all of the state consistent
> > and correct.
> >
> > But yeah, it's kind of hairy & hard to read, IMHO.
> >
> > Also as far as I can tell, we handle such discontiguities correctly,
> > other than the bug I found. If you see something that looks suspicious,
> > I'm sure I could tweak my test case to craft a specific situation if
> > there's something you'd like to see tested...
> >
>
> Background: Eric and I chatted a bit on irc to rectify that what I'm
> calling out above is a different issue from what is fixed by this patch.
>
> Eric,
>
> I managed to construct a directory that looks like this:
>
> EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL
> 0: [0..7]: 88..95 0 (88..95) 8
> 1: [8..15]: 80..87 0 (80..87) 8
> 2: [16..39]: 168..191 0 (168..191) 24
> 3: [40..63]: 5242952..5242975 1 (72..95) 24
>
> The fs has 8k directory fsbs. Dir fsb offset 0 spans extents 0 and 1,
> offset 1 (which corresponds to the 512b range 16-31 above) is covered
> completely by extent 2 and dir offset 2 (range 32-47) spans extents 2
> and 3. An ls of this directory produces this:
>
> XFS (dm-3): Metadata corruption detected at xfs_dir3_data_reada_verify+0x42/0x80 [xfs], xfs_dir3_data_reada block 0x500058
> XFS (dm-3): Unmount and run xfs_repair
> XFS (dm-3): First 64 bytes of corrupted metadata buffer:
> ffffbcb901c44000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 64 0f 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 .......d.xxxxxxx
> ffffbcb901c44010: 78 78 78 78 2e 38 38 36 01 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 xxxx.886........
> ffffbcb901c44020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 64 0f 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 .......d.xxxxxxx
> ffffbcb901c44030: 78 78 78 78 2e 38 38 37 01 00 00 00 00 00 10 20 xxxx.887.......
>
> ... which is yelling about block 184 (dir fsb 2). The fs is otherwise
> clean according to xfs_repair.
>
> I _think_ something like the appended diff deals with it, but this is
> lightly tested only and could definitely use more eyes.
>
> Brian
>
> --- 8< ---
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c
> index ad9396e..9fa379d 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c
> @@ -404,7 +404,8 @@ xfs_dir2_leaf_readbuf(
> * Read-ahead a contiguous directory block.
> */
> if (i > mip->ra_current &&
> - map[mip->ra_index].br_blockcount >= geo->fsbcount) {
> + (map[mip->ra_index].br_blockcount - mip->ra_offset) >=
> + geo->fsbcount) {
> xfs_dir3_data_readahead(dp,
> map[mip->ra_index].br_startoff + mip->ra_offset,
> XFS_FSB_TO_DADDR(dp->i_mount,
> @@ -432,7 +433,7 @@ xfs_dir2_leaf_readbuf(
> * The rest of this extent but not more than a dir
> * block.
> */
> - length = min_t(int, geo->fsbcount,
> + length = min_t(int, geo->fsbcount - j,
Looks ok to me to make Eric's bugfix complete.
I will, however, post a cleanup patch to remove the persistent shadow
bmap and have readahead issued directly off the inode fork contents.
--D
> map[mip->ra_index].br_blockcount -
> mip->ra_offset);
> mip->ra_offset += length;
> --
> 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
