On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 01:37:28PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:33:18AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:16:28AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:03:54PM +0100, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 02:24:51PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > Disliked-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent as RFC for the time being. This tests Ok on a straight xfstests run
> > > > > and also seems to pass Darrick's agfl fixup tester (thanks) both on
> > > > > upstream and on a rhel7 kernel with some minor supporting hacks.
> > > > >
> > > > > I tried to tighten up the logic a bit to reduce the odds of mistaking
> > > > > actual corruption for a padding mismatch as much as possible. E.g.,
> > > > > limit to cases where the agfl is wrapped, make sure we don't mistake a
> > > > > corruption that looks like an agfl with 120 entries on a packed kernel,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > While I do prefer an on-demand fixup approach to a mount time scan, ISTM
> > > > > that in either case it's impossible to completely eliminate the risk of
> > > > > confusing corruption with a padding mismatch so long as we're doing a
> > > > > manual agfl fixup. The more I think about that the more I really dislike
> > > > > doing this. :(
> > > > >
> > > > > After some IRC discussion with djwong and sandeen, I'm wondering if the
> > > > > existence of 'xfs_repair -d' is a good enough last resort for those
> > > > > users who might be bit by unexpected padding issues on a typical
> > > > > upgrade. If so, we could fall back to a safer mount-time detection model
> > > > > that enforces a read-only mount and let the user run repair. The
> > > > > supposition is that those who aren't prepared to repair via a ramdisk or
> > > > > whatever should be able to 'xfs_repair -d' a rootfs that is mounted
> > > > > read-only provided agfl padding is the only inconsistency.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric points out that we can still write an unmount record for a
> > > > > read-only mount, but I'm not sure that would be a problem if repair only
> > > > > needs to fix the agfl. xfs_repair shouldn't touch the log unless there's
> > > > > a recovery issue or it needs to be reformatted to update the LSN, both
> > > > > of which seem to qualify as "you have more problems than agfl padding
> > > > > and need to run repair anyways" to me. Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if this may sound stupid, but in the possibility this can help the issue,
> > > > or at least me learning something new.
> > > >
> > > > ISTM this issue is all related to the way xfs_agfl packing. I read the commit
> > > > log where packed attribute was added to xfs_agfl, and I was wondering...
> > > >
> > > > What are the implications of breaking up the lsn field in xfs_agfl, in 2 __be32?
> > > > Merge it together in a 64bit field when reading it from disk, or split it when
> > > > writing to?
> > > > It seems to me this would avoid the size difference we are seeing now in 32/64
> > > > bit systems, and avoid such risk of confusion when trying to discern between a
> > > > corrupted agfl and a padding mismatch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not following how you'd accomplish the latter..? We already have the
> > > packed attribute in place, so the padding is fixed with that. This
> > > effort has to do with trying to fix up an agfl written by an older
> > > kernel without the padding fix. My understanding is that the xfs_agfl
> > > header looks exactly the same on-disk in either case, the issue is a
> > > broken size calculation that causes the older kernel to not see/use one
> > > last slot in the agfl. If the agfl has wrapped and a newer kernel loads
> > > the same on-disk structure, it has no means to know whether the content
> > > of the final slot is a valid block or a "gap" left by an older kernel
> > > other than to check whether flcount matches the active count from
> > > flfirst -> fllast (and that's where potential confusion over a padding
> > > issue vs other corruption comes into play).
> >
> > Your understanding is correct.
> >
> > Sez me, who is watching the fsck.xfs -f discussion just in case that can
> > be turned into a viable option quickly.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> > ..and wondering what if we /did/ just implement Dave's suggestion from
> > years ago where if the flcount doesn't match we just reset the agfl and
> > call fix_freelist to refill it with fresh blocks... it would suck to
> > leak blocks, though. Obviously, if the fs has rmap enabled then we can
> > just rebuild it on the spot via xfs_repair_agfl() (see patch on mailing
> > list).
> >
>
> I wasn't initially too fond of this idea, but thinking about it a bit
> more, there is definitely some value in terms of determinism. We know
> we'll just leak some blocks vs. riskily swizzling around a corrupted
> agfl. We've had the whole lingering unlinked inode thing in the past
> without that being such a huge problem, as a point of comparison to
> something like leaked blocks. Most users are likely to hit ENOSPC before
> utilizing every last block anyways.
I don't think the unlinked inode leftovers is a good comparison, those
can leave gigabytes of space unreclaimed, and I thought Eric's patch to
make it unconditional was a reaction to someone actually hitting ENOSPC.
Also those unlinked inodes should all have valid metadata.
However, the borked AGFLs have questionable metadata (is it corrupt, or
is it just improperly padded?) and the number of blocks is probably
small, so leaking ~10 blocks per AG probably isn't going to kill us.
Even if the agfl is totally full on a 4k sector disk, 1000 blocks is
still only 4MB.
> It also sounds like there was some general performance related concern
> over mount time scans. My initial distaste for that was more from a
> code/overkill perspective, I hadn't really considered the performance
> aspect.
>
> Given that, perhaps an on-demand reset with a "Corrupted AGFL, tossed
> $flcount blocks, unmount and run xfs_repair if you ever want to see them
> again" warning might not be so bad. It works the same whether the kernel
> is packed, unpacked or the agfl is just borked, and therefore the test
> matrix is much simpler as well. Hmmmm...
Something occurred to me late yesterday while talking to Eric about his
patch to do the unlinked inode recovery. For a reflinked filesystem, we
already iterate every AG at mount time to clean out all the stale CoW
staging extents. Given that we already take the performance hit to walk
all the AGs, perhaps it makes sense to combine the stale cow, unlinked
inode, and bad-pad agf scans into a single pass?
Granted you do make the point that we've been leaking unlinked inodes on
rootfses for ages with little trouble, but in the long run I think we'd
prefer to clean up the filesystem leftovers.
--D
> Brian
>
> > --D
> >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > > But still, just as reinforcement, this is just a guess, and I have no idea if
> > > > this is feasible or not, but in case I'm completely nuts, I'll learn something
> > > > new :)
> > > >
> > > > Cheers.
> > > >
> > > > > Brian
> > > > >
> > > > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c | 147 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h | 1 +
> > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h | 18 ++++++
> > > > > 3 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c
> > > > > index c02781a4c091..31330996e31c 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c
> > > > > @@ -2054,6 +2054,136 @@ xfs_alloc_space_available(
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > + * Estimate the on-disk agfl size based on the agf state. A size mismatch due to
> > > > > + * padding is only significant if the agfl wraps around the end or refers to an
> > > > > + * invalid first/last value.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static int
> > > > > +xfs_agfl_ondisk_size(
> > > > > + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > > > > + int first,
> > > > > + int last,
> > > > > + int count)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int active = count;
> > > > > + int agfl_size = XFS_AGFL_SIZE(mp);
> > > > > + bool wrapped = (first > last) ? true : false;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (count && last >= first)
> > > > > + active = last - first + 1;
> > > > > + else if (count)
> > > > > + active = agfl_size - first + last + 1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (wrapped && active == count + 1)
> > > > > + agfl_size--;
> > > > > + else if ((wrapped && active == count - 1) ||
> > > > > + first == agfl_size || last == agfl_size)
> > > > > + agfl_size++;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * We can't discern the packing problem from certain forms of corruption
> > > > > + * that may look exactly the same. To minimize the chance of mistaking
> > > > > + * corruption for a size mismatch, clamp the size to known valid values.
> > > > > + * A packed header agfl has 119 entries and the older unpacked format
> > > > > + * has one less.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (agfl_size < 118 || agfl_size > 119)
> > > > > + agfl_size = XFS_AGFL_SIZE(mp);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return agfl_size;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static bool
> > > > > +xfs_agfl_need_padfix(
> > > > > + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > > > > + struct xfs_agf *agf)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int f = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_flfirst);
> > > > > + int l = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_fllast);
> > > > > + int c = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_flcount);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return xfs_agfl_ondisk_size(mp, f, l, c) != XFS_AGFL_SIZE(mp);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int
> > > > > +xfs_agfl_check_padfix(
> > > > > + struct xfs_trans *tp,
> > > > > + struct xfs_buf *agbp,
> > > > > + struct xfs_buf *agflbp,
> > > > > + struct xfs_perag *pag)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct xfs_mount *mp = tp->t_mountp;
> > > > > + struct xfs_agf *agf = XFS_BUF_TO_AGF(agbp);
> > > > > + __be32 *agfl_bno = XFS_BUF_TO_AGFL_BNO(mp, agflbp);
> > > > > + int agfl_size = XFS_AGFL_SIZE(mp);
> > > > > + int ofirst, olast, osize;
> > > > > + int nfirst, nlast;
> > > > > + int logflags = 0;
> > > > > + int startoff = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!pag->pagf_needpadfix)
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + ofirst = nfirst = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_flfirst);
> > > > > + olast = nlast = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_fllast);
> > > > > + osize = xfs_agfl_ondisk_size(mp, ofirst, olast, pag->pagf_flcount);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * If the on-disk agfl is smaller than what the kernel expects, the
> > > > > + * last slot of the on-disk agfl is a gap with bogus data. Move the
> > > > > + * first valid block into the gap and bump the pointer.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (osize < agfl_size) {
> > > > > + ASSERT(pag->pagf_flcount != 0);
> > > > > + agfl_bno[agfl_size - 1] = agfl_bno[ofirst];
> > > > > + startoff = (char *) &agfl_bno[agfl_size - 1] - (char *) agflbp->b_addr;
> > > > > + nfirst++;
> > > > > + goto done;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Otherwise, the on-disk agfl is larger than what the current kernel
> > > > > + * expects. If empty, just fix up the first and last pointers. If not,
> > > > > + * move the inaccessible block to the end of the valid range.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + nfirst = do_mod(nfirst, agfl_size);
> > > > > + if (pag->pagf_flcount == 0) {
> > > > > + nlast = (nfirst == 0 ? agfl_size - 1 : nfirst - 1);
> > > > > + goto done;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + if (nlast != agfl_size)
> > > > > + nlast++;
> > > > > + nlast = do_mod(nlast, agfl_size);
> > > > > + agfl_bno[nlast] = agfl_bno[osize - 1];
> > > > > + startoff = (char *) &agfl_bno[nlast] - (char *) agflbp->b_addr;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +done:
> > > > > + if (nfirst != ofirst) {
> > > > > + agf->agf_flfirst = cpu_to_be32(nfirst);
> > > > > + logflags |= XFS_AGF_FLFIRST;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + if (nlast != olast) {
> > > > > + agf->agf_fllast = cpu_to_be32(nlast);
> > > > > + logflags |= XFS_AGF_FLLAST;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + if (startoff) {
> > > > > + xfs_trans_buf_set_type(tp, agflbp, XFS_BLFT_AGFL_BUF);
> > > > > + xfs_trans_log_buf(tp, agflbp, startoff,
> > > > > + startoff + sizeof(xfs_agblock_t) - 1);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + if (logflags)
> > > > > + xfs_alloc_log_agf(tp, agbp, logflags);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + trace_xfs_agfl_padfix(mp, osize, agfl_size);
> > > > > + pag->pagf_needpadfix = false;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > * Decide whether to use this allocation group for this allocation.
> > > > > * If so, fix up the btree freelist's size.
> > > > > */
> > > > > @@ -2258,6 +2388,12 @@ xfs_alloc_get_freelist(
> > > > > if (error)
> > > > > return error;
> > > > >
> > > > > + pag = xfs_perag_get(mp, be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_seqno));
> > > > > + error = xfs_agfl_check_padfix(tp, agbp, agflbp, pag);
> > > > > + if (error) {
> > > > > + xfs_perag_put(pag);
> > > > > + return error;
> > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * Get the block number and update the data structures.
> > > > > @@ -2269,7 +2405,6 @@ xfs_alloc_get_freelist(
> > > > > if (be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_flfirst) == XFS_AGFL_SIZE(mp))
> > > > > agf->agf_flfirst = 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > - pag = xfs_perag_get(mp, be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_seqno));
> > > > > be32_add_cpu(&agf->agf_flcount, -1);
> > > > > xfs_trans_agflist_delta(tp, -1);
> > > > > pag->pagf_flcount--;
> > > > > @@ -2376,11 +2511,18 @@ xfs_alloc_put_freelist(
> > > > > if (!agflbp && (error = xfs_alloc_read_agfl(mp, tp,
> > > > > be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_seqno), &agflbp)))
> > > > > return error;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pag = xfs_perag_get(mp, be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_seqno));
> > > > > + error = xfs_agfl_check_padfix(tp, agbp, agflbp, pag);
> > > > > + if (error) {
> > > > > + xfs_perag_put(pag);
> > > > > + return error;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > be32_add_cpu(&agf->agf_fllast, 1);
> > > > > if (be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_fllast) == XFS_AGFL_SIZE(mp))
> > > > > agf->agf_fllast = 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > - pag = xfs_perag_get(mp, be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_seqno));
> > > > > be32_add_cpu(&agf->agf_flcount, 1);
> > > > > xfs_trans_agflist_delta(tp, 1);
> > > > > pag->pagf_flcount++;
> > > > > @@ -2588,6 +2730,7 @@ xfs_alloc_read_agf(
> > > > > pag->pagb_count = 0;
> > > > > pag->pagb_tree = RB_ROOT;
> > > > > pag->pagf_init = 1;
> > > > > + pag->pagf_needpadfix = xfs_agfl_need_padfix(mp, agf);
> > > > > }
> > > > > #ifdef DEBUG
> > > > > else if (!XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp)) {
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
> > > > > index e0792d036be2..78a6377a9b38 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
> > > > > @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_perag {
> > > > > char pagi_inodeok; /* The agi is ok for inodes */
> > > > > uint8_t pagf_levels[XFS_BTNUM_AGF];
> > > > > /* # of levels in bno & cnt btree */
> > > > > + bool pagf_needpadfix;
> > > > > uint32_t pagf_flcount; /* count of blocks in freelist */
> > > > > xfs_extlen_t pagf_freeblks; /* total free blocks */
> > > > > xfs_extlen_t pagf_longest; /* longest free space */
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h
> > > > > index 945de08af7ba..c7a3bcd6cc4a 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h
> > > > > @@ -3339,6 +3339,24 @@ TRACE_EVENT(xfs_trans_resv_calc,
> > > > > __entry->logflags)
> > > > > );
> > > > >
> > > > > +TRACE_EVENT(xfs_agfl_padfix,
> > > > > + TP_PROTO(struct xfs_mount *mp, int osize, int nsize),
> > > > > + TP_ARGS(mp, osize, nsize),
> > > > > + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > > > > + __field(dev_t, dev)
> > > > > + __field(int, osize)
> > > > > + __field(int, nsize)
> > > > > + ),
> > > > > + TP_fast_assign(
> > > > > + __entry->dev = mp->m_super->s_dev;
> > > > > + __entry->osize = osize;
> > > > > + __entry->nsize = nsize;
> > > > > + ),
> > > > > + TP_printk("dev %d:%d old size %d new size %d",
> > > > > + MAJOR(__entry->dev), MINOR(__entry->dev),
> > > > > + __entry->osize, __entry->nsize)
> > > > > +);
> > > > > +
> > > > > #endif /* _TRACE_XFS_H */
> > > > >
> > > > > #undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.13.6
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos
> > > > --
> > > > 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
--
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
