Re: [RFC 00/12] xfs: more and better verifiers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:06:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:05:16AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:31:29PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > This RFC combines all the random little fixes and improvements to the
> > > verifiers that we've been talking about for the past month or so into a
> > > single patch series!
> > > 
> > > We start by refactoring the long format btree block header verifier into
> > > a single helper functionn and de-macroing dir block verifiers to make
> > > them less shouty.  Next, we change verifier functions to return the
> > > approximate instruction pointer of the faulting test so that we can
> > > report more precise fault information to dmesg/tracepoints.
> > 
> > Just jumping here quickly because I don't have time for a detailed
> > review:
> > 
> > How good does this instruction pointer thing resolved to the actual
> > issue?
> 
> Ugh, it's terrible once you turn on the optimizer.
> 
>         if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))                                  
>                 return __this_address;                                          
>         if (!uuid_equal(&block->bb_u.s.bb_uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid))        
>                 return __this_address;                                          
>         if (block->bb_u.s.bb_blkno != cpu_to_be64(bp->b_bn))                    
>                 return __this_address;                                          
>         if (pag && be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_owner) != pag->pag_agno)        
>                 return __this_address;                                          
>         return NULL;                                                            
> 
> becomes:
> 
>         if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))                                  
>                 goto out;                                          
>         if (!uuid_equal(&block->bb_u.s.bb_uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid))        
>                 goto out;                                          
>         if (block->bb_u.s.bb_blkno != cpu_to_be64(bp->b_bn))                    
>                 goto out;                                          
>         if (pag && be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_owner) != pag->pag_agno)        
>                 goto out;                                          
>         return NULL;                                                            
> out:
> 	return __this_address;
> 
> ...which is totally worthless, unless we want to compile all the verifier
> functions with __attribute__((optimize("O0"))), which is bogus.
> 
> <sigh> Back to the drawing board on that one.

Ok, there's /slightly/ less awful way to prevent gcc from optimizing the
verifier function to the point of imprecise pointer value, but it involves
writing to a volatile int:

/* stupidly prevent gcc from over-optimizing getting the instruction ptr */
extern volatile int xfs_lineno;
#define __this_address ({ __label__ __here; __here: xfs_lineno = __LINE__; &&__here; })

<grumble> Yucky, but it more or less works.

--D

> 
> > I'm currently watching a customer issue where a write verifier
> > triggers, and I gave them a patch to add a debug print to every failing
> > statement, including printing out the mismatch values if it's not
> > simply a binary comparism.  I though about preparing that patch as
> > well as others for mainline.  Here is the one I have at the moment:
> > 
> > ---
> > From 6c5e2efc6f857228461d439feb3c98be58fb9744 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 16:34:15 +0200
> > Subject: xfs: print verbose information on dir leaf verifier failures
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c
> > index b887fb2a2bcf..4386c68f72c6 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c
> > @@ -113,27 +113,37 @@ xfs_dir3_leaf_check_int(
> >  	 * Should factor in the size of the bests table as well.
> >  	 * We can deduce a value for that from di_size.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (hdr->count > ops->leaf_max_ents(geo))
> > +	if (hdr->count > ops->leaf_max_ents(geo)) {
> > +		xfs_warn(mp, "count (%d) above max (%d)\n",
> > +			hdr->count, ops->leaf_max_ents(geo));
> >  		return false;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	/* Leaves and bests don't overlap in leaf format. */
> >  	if ((hdr->magic == XFS_DIR2_LEAF1_MAGIC ||
> >  	     hdr->magic == XFS_DIR3_LEAF1_MAGIC) &&
> > -	    (char *)&ents[hdr->count] > (char *)xfs_dir2_leaf_bests_p(ltp))
> > +	    (char *)&ents[hdr->count] > (char *)xfs_dir2_leaf_bests_p(ltp)) {
> > +		xfs_warn(mp, "ents overlappings bests\n");
> >  		return false;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	/* Check hash value order, count stale entries.  */
> >  	for (i = stale = 0; i < hdr->count; i++) {
> >  		if (i + 1 < hdr->count) {
> >  			if (be32_to_cpu(ents[i].hashval) >
> > -					be32_to_cpu(ents[i + 1].hashval))
> > +					be32_to_cpu(ents[i + 1].hashval)) {
> > +				xfs_warn(mp, "broken hash order\n");
> >  				return false;
> > +			}
> >  		}
> >  		if (ents[i].address == cpu_to_be32(XFS_DIR2_NULL_DATAPTR))
> >  			stale++;
> >  	}
> > -	if (hdr->stale != stale)
> > +	if (hdr->stale != stale) {
> > +		xfs_warn(mp, "incorrect stalte count (%d, expected %d)\n",
> > +			hdr->stale, stale);
> >  		return false;
> > +	}
> >  	return true;
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -159,12 +169,21 @@ xfs_dir3_leaf_verify(
> >  		magic3 = (magic == XFS_DIR2_LEAF1_MAGIC) ? XFS_DIR3_LEAF1_MAGIC
> >  							 : XFS_DIR3_LEAFN_MAGIC;
> >  
> > -		if (leaf3->info.hdr.magic != cpu_to_be16(magic3))
> > +		if (leaf3->info.hdr.magic != cpu_to_be16(magic3)) {
> > +			xfs_warn(mp, "incorrect magic number (0x%hx, expected 0x%hx)\n",
> > +					leaf3->info.hdr.magic, magic3);
> >  			return false;
> > -		if (!uuid_equal(&leaf3->info.uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid))
> > +		}
> > +		if (!uuid_equal(&leaf3->info.uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid)) {
> > +			xfs_warn(mp, "incorrect uuid, (%pUb, expected %pUb)\n",
> > +				&leaf3->info.uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid);
> >  			return false;
> > -		if (be64_to_cpu(leaf3->info.blkno) != bp->b_bn)
> > +		}
> > +		if (be64_to_cpu(leaf3->info.blkno) != bp->b_bn) {
> > +			xfs_warn(mp, "incorrect blkno, (%lld, expected %lld)\n",
> > +				be64_to_cpu(leaf3->info.blkno), bp->b_bn);
> >  			return false;
> > +		}
> >  		if (!xfs_log_check_lsn(mp, be64_to_cpu(leaf3->info.lsn)))
> >  			return false;
> >  	} else {
> > -- 
> > 2.11.0
> > 
> > --
> > 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
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux