On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 08:59:18AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 07:50:48AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:22:42AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:28:40PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:48:10AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 07:54:34AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:42:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > > Rather, I'm asking about the pre-existing code that we remove. The hunk
> > > > > > just above from xfs_inactive_symlink():
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - /*
> > > > > > - * Zero length symlinks _can_ exist.
> > > > > > - */
> > > > > > - if (!pathlen) {
> > > > > > - xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > > > > > - return 0;
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ... obviously suggests that there could have been a situation where we'd
> > > > > > see a zero-length symlink on entry to xfs_inactive_symlink(). This
> > > > > > patch, however, focuses on fixing the transient zero-length symlink
> > > > > > caused by xfs_inactive_symlink_rmt() (which comes after the above
> > > > > > check).
> > >
> > > It can't happen through normal VFS paths, and I don't think it can
> > > happen through log recovery. That's why I replaced this with an ASSERT.
> > >
> > > In the normal behaviour case, zero length symlinks were created
> > > /after/ this point in time, and we've always been unable to read
> > > such inodes because xfs_dinode_verify() has always rejected zero
> > > length symlink inodes.
> > >
> >
> > That was my initial understanding as well..
> >
> > > However, log recovery doesn't trip over the transient inode state
> > > because it does not use xfs_dinode_verify() for inode recovery - it
> > > reads the buffer with xfs_inode_buf_ops, and that just checks the
> > > inode numbers and then recovers whatever is in the log over the top.
> > > It never checks for zero length symlinks on recovery, and it never
> > > goes through the dinode verifier (on read or write!) to catch this.
> > >
> > > It's not until we then recover the remaining intent chain that we go
> > > through xfs_iget/xfs_iread/xfs_inactive/xfs_ifree, and that
> > > xfs_iget() call runs xfs_dinode_verify(). If we've already recovered
> > > any part of the remote symlink removal intent chain (and we must
> > > have to be replaying EFIs!) this should see a zero length symlink
> > > inode. AIUI, we have no evidence that the verifier has ever fired at
> > > this point in time, even when recovering known transient zero length
> > > states.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, not sure we're talking about the same thing. I ran a quick
> > experiment to try and clear up my confusion here, at least. I injected a
> > shutdown at the point inactive creates the zero sized symlink and
> > created/removed a remote symlink. On a remount, I hit the following
> > during log recovery:
> >
> > [ 685.931834] XFS (dm-3): Starting recovery (logdev: internal)
> > [ 685.993014] XFS (dm-3): Metadata corruption detected at xfs_dinode_verify+0x331/0x490 [xfs], inode 0x85 dinode
> > [ 685.996287] XFS (dm-3): Unmount and run xfs_repair
> > [ 685.996911] XFS (dm-3): First 128 bytes of corrupted metadata buffer:
> > ...
> > [ 686.006647] Call Trace:
> > [ 686.006922] dump_stack+0x85/0xcb
> > [ 686.007338] xfs_iread+0xeb/0x220 [xfs]
> > [ 686.007820] xfs_iget+0x4bd/0x1100 [xfs]
> > [ 686.008344] xlog_recover_process_one_iunlink+0x4d/0x3c0 [xfs]
> > ...
> >
> > That seems to show that the verifier can impede unlinked list processing
> > if the change is at least present in the log.
>
> Which happens after we process intents - ah, the bmap intents only
> occur from swap extents, so the inode is not read via xfs_iget()
> in this case until unlinked list processing.
>
> So, yeah, we are talking about the same thing - it's the second
> phase of recovery that reads inodes through xfs_iget() (for whatever
> reason) that will trip over the xfs_dinode_verifier.
>
> > If I recreate that same dirty log state and mount with this patch
> > applied (note that the fs is created without this patch to simulate an
> > old kernel that has not changed i_mode in the same transaction that sets
> > di_size = 0) along with a hack to avoid the check in
> > xfs_dinode_verify(), I now hit the new assert and corruption error
> > that's been placed in xfs_inactive_symlink().
> >
> > So to Darrick's point, that seems to show that this is a vector to the
> > pre-existing len == 0 check in xfs_inactive_symlink(). Given that, it
> > seems to me that if we want to handle recovery from this state, we'd
> > still need to work around the verifier check and retain the initial
> > di_size == 0 check in xfs_inactive_symlink().
>
> I think we should get rid of the transient state, not continue to
> work around it. Because the transient state only exists in a log
> recovery context, we can change the behaviour and not care about
> older kernels still having the problem because all that is needed to
> avoid the issue is a clean log when upgrading the kernel.
>
Right... that sounds reasonable to me, but we still need to consider how
we handle a filesystem already in this state. BTW, was this a user
report or a manufactured corruption due to fuzzing/shutdown testing or
something?
It's probably an extremely rare real-world situation to encounter so
perhaps this approach is good enough on its own and we just punt. I
think we at least need to document that in the commit log, however.
IIRC, the filesystem still actually mounted during the test I ran the
other day, despite the verifier failure. Taking a look at that codepath,
we have this:
/*
* We can't read in the inode this bucket points to, or this inode
* is messed up. Just ditch this bucket of inodes. We will lose
* some inodes and space, but at least we won't hang.
*
* Call xlog_recover_clear_agi_bucket() to perform a transaction to
* clear the inode pointer in the bucket.
*/
xlog_recover_clear_agi_bucket(mp, agno, bucket);
... which explains why that occurs: we just nuke the AGI unlinked list
bucket after failing to read an inode from it. I guess that means we
leak some inodes, but those were already freed so that's not really a
data loss vector. This otherwise doesn't seem to affect the recovery or
mount sequence. The leaked inodes can be recovered by a repair at a
later point. Is that overall behavior consistent with what you've seen
on the corrupted image?
Given that additional context, I don't feel too strongly about needing
to specially handle the "zero length symlink already exists in the dirty
log due to xfs_inactive_symlink_rmt()" case. Chances are the mount that
reported the error already nuked the state in the first place, so users
shouldn't really end up "stuck" somewhere between needing a kernel fix
or an 'xfs_repair -L' run (but if that's the approach we take, please
just note the tradeoff in the commit log). Just my .02.
Brian
> > > i.e all the cases I've seen where repair complains about symlinks
> > > with "dfork format 2 and size 0" it is because the log is dirty and
> > > hasn't been replayed. Mounting the filesystem and running log
> > > recovery makes the problem go away, and this is what lead to me
> > > removing the zeor length handling - the verifier should already
> > > be firing if it is recovering an intent on a zero length symlink
> > > inode...
> > >
> >
> > I haven't grokked all the details here, but the behavior you describe
> > does sound like this might be a different scenario from the above.
>
> No, we are talking about the same thing. The only difference is that
> I've been working from a bug report and corrupted fuzzer image, not
> a real world corruption vector. Hence I'm trying to work backwards
> from "here's a corrupt image that crashed" to "this is all the paths
> that can lead to that on disk state".
>
> While writing my last reply, I suspected you were correct about the
> log recovery state, which is why I said:
>
> > > That said, I'll try some more focussed testing with intentional
> > > corruption to see if it's just a case of my testing being (un)lucky
> > > and not triggering this issue...
>
> As you've shown, I was being (un)lucky, so more work is needed on
> this one.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> 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
