On 4/18/17 7:09 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 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.
Brian, thanks for crafting the image to expose this. :)
I've been otherwise occupied today, sorry - technically this fixes a separate
issue, yes? So 2 patches, 2 bugfixes AFAICT?
Thanks,
-Eric
> 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
