On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 08:02:53AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 09:36:11AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Make sure the root inode gets created where repair thinks it should be
> > created.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > libxfs/libxfs_api_defs.h | 1 +
> > mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/libxfs/libxfs_api_defs.h b/libxfs/libxfs_api_defs.h
> > index 645c9b1b..8f6b9fc2 100644
> > --- a/libxfs/libxfs_api_defs.h
> > +++ b/libxfs/libxfs_api_defs.h
> > @@ -156,5 +156,6 @@
> >
> > #define xfs_ag_init_headers libxfs_ag_init_headers
> > #define xfs_buf_delwri_submit libxfs_buf_delwri_submit
> > +#define xfs_ialloc_find_prealloc libxfs_ialloc_find_prealloc
> >
>
> Perhaps this should be in the previous patch..?
<shrug> I think the libxfs wrapper macro things shouldn't be introduced
until there's a caller outside of libxfs.
>
> > #endif /* __LIBXFS_API_DEFS_H__ */
> > diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > index 18338a61..5143d9b4 100644
> > --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > @@ -3521,6 +3521,28 @@ rewrite_secondary_superblocks(
> > libxfs_writebuf(buf, LIBXFS_EXIT_ON_FAILURE);
> > }
> >
> > +static void
> > +check_root_ino(
> > + struct xfs_mount *mp)
> > +{
> > + xfs_agino_t first, last;
> > +
> > + if (XFS_INO_TO_AGNO(mp, mp->m_sb.sb_rootino) != 0) {
> > + fprintf(stderr,
> > + _("%s: root inode created in AG %u, not AG 0\n"),
> > + progname, XFS_INO_TO_AGNO(mp, mp->m_sb.sb_rootino));
> > + exit(1);
> > + }
> > +
> > + libxfs_ialloc_find_prealloc(mp, &first, &last);
> > + if (mp->m_sb.sb_rootino != XFS_AGINO_TO_INO(mp, 0, first)) {
> > + fprintf(stderr,
> > + _("%s: root inode (%llu) not created in first chunk\n"),
> > + progname, (unsigned long long)mp->m_sb.sb_rootino);
>
> If the root inode ended up somewhere in the middle of the first chunk,
> we'd fail (rightly), but with a misleading error message. Perhaps
> something like "root inode (..) not allocated in expected location"
Ok, fixed.
> would be better? I'd also like to see a comment somewhere in here to
> explain why we have this check. For example:
>
> "The superblock refers directly to the root inode, but repair makes
> hardcoded assumptions about its location based on filesystem geometry
> for an extra level of verification. If this assumption ever breaks, we
> should flag it immediately and fail the mkfs. Otherwise repair may
> consider the filesystem corrupt and toss the root inode."
How about:
/*
* The superblock points to the root directory inode, but xfs_repair
* expects to find the root inode in a very specific location computed
* from the filesystem geometry for an extra level of verification.
*
* Fail the format immediately if those assumptions ever break, because
* repair will toss the root directory.
*/
> Feel free to reword that however appropriate (given the behavior change
> in subsequent patches), of course..
Ok.
--D
> Brian
>
> > + exit(1);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > int
> > main(
> > int argc,
> > @@ -3807,12 +3829,7 @@ main(
> > /*
> > * Protect ourselves against possible stupidity
> > */
> > - if (XFS_INO_TO_AGNO(mp, mp->m_sb.sb_rootino) != 0) {
> > - fprintf(stderr,
> > - _("%s: root inode created in AG %u, not AG 0\n"),
> > - progname, XFS_INO_TO_AGNO(mp, mp->m_sb.sb_rootino));
> > - exit(1);
> > - }
> > + check_root_ino(mp);
> >
> > /*
> > * Re-write multiple secondary superblocks with rootinode field set
> >
>
