On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 02:26:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/21/18 2:15 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > On 6/20/18 11:57 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:55:20PM -0400, jeffm@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Commit 051b4e37f5e (mkfs: factor AG alignment) factored out the
> >>> AG alignment code into a separate function. It got rid of
> >>> redundant checks for dswidth != 0 but did too good a job since now
> >>> it doesn't check at all.
> >>
> >> Of course they got removed - we've already validated the CLI input
> >> and guaranteed that cfg->dswidth can only be zero iff cfg->dsunit is
> >> zero in calc_stripe_factors().
> >>
> >> i.e. We do input validation of CLI paramters before anything else so
> >> that later users (like align_ag_geometry()) can assume the
> >> parameters they are using are valid. In this case, the assumption is
> >> that either both dsunit and dswidth are zero or that both are
> >> non-zero and dswidth an integer multple of dsunit.
> >
> > It's not coming from the CLI parameters. It's coming from the topology.
> > The blkid topology stuff is returning 8k for minimal i/o and 0 for
> > optimal. Without a CLI config, we have dunit=0 in calc_stripe_factors,
> > which takes it from the device. We set cfg->dsunit=16 and
> > cfg->dswidth=0, and then head down to align_ag_geometry.
> >
> > The topology on this system looks like:
> >
> > ft = {dsunit = 16, dswidth = 0, rtswidth = 0, lsectorsize = 512,
> >
> > psectorsize = 512}
> > That matches with a few of the dm targets I see reported on this system.
Exactly what kind of dm device does that - we've never had anyone
report this before? Also, if it's a dm device, shouldn't it
also be fixed to output a sane set of IO characteristics in /sys?
> > Since minimal io size isn't sector size, we don't clear it. Talking
> > with Eric, we should probably just extent that check in
> > blkid_get_topology to cover that case since it's not like we can just
> > reject what blkid gives us.
> >
> >>> When we hit the check to see if agsize
> >>> is a multiple of stripe width: (cfg->agsize % cfg->dswidth), we crash
> >>> on a divide by zero.
> >>
> >> What CLI config did you use to hit this? I'd like to reproduce it so
> >> I can see where calc_stripe_factors() is going wrong....
> >
> > It was just "mkfs.xfs <path-to-mpath-device>"
>
> yeah, so in blkid_get_topology we have:
>
> /*
> * If the reported values are the same as the physical sector size
> * do not bother to report anything. It will only cause warnings
> * if people specify larger stripe units or widths manually.
> */
> if (*sunit == *psectorsize || *swidth == *psectorsize) {
> *sunit = 0;
> *swidth = 0;
> }
>
> as a sanity check. We should probably extend that (or add a similar test)
> which sets both to zero if either is zero, for the same reason as the CLI
> validation does it. Comments should explain why....
>
> /*
> * Ensure that if either sunit or stripe width is zero, the other
> * is as well. Having only one set is not valid stripe geometry.
> */
> if (*sunit == 0 || *swidth == 0) {
> *sunit = 0;
> *swidth = 0;
> }
Yup, we need to validate that input properly before using it. Silly
me - I should have known better that to assume external code would
give back sane results.....
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
