On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 10:28:10PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Teach the xfs_db version command about the 'needsrepair' flag, which can
> be used to force the system administrator to repair the filesystem with
> xfs_repair.
>
Remind me of the use case for this particular flag..?
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> db/check.c | 5 ++
> db/sb.c | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> db/xfs_admin.sh | 6 ++
> man/man8/xfs_admin.8 | 15 +++++
> man/man8/xfs_db.8 | 5 ++
> 5 files changed, 181 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/db/check.c b/db/check.c
> index 33736e33..485e855e 100644
> --- a/db/check.c
> +++ b/db/check.c
> @@ -3970,6 +3970,11 @@ scan_ag(
> dbprintf(_("mkfs not completed successfully\n"));
> error++;
> }
> + if (xfs_sb_version_needsrepair(sb)) {
> + if (!sflag)
> + dbprintf(_("filesystem needs xfs_repair\n"));
> + error++;
> + }
I wonder a bit how much we want to cripple more developer oriented
commands vs obvious admin operations. label/uuid make sense, but what's
the motivation for check?
> set_dbmap(agno, XFS_SB_BLOCK(mp), 1, DBM_SB, agno, XFS_SB_BLOCK(mp));
> if (sb->sb_logstart && XFS_FSB_TO_AGNO(mp, sb->sb_logstart) == agno)
> set_dbmap(agno, XFS_FSB_TO_AGBNO(mp, sb->sb_logstart),
> diff --git a/db/sb.c b/db/sb.c
> index d09f653d..93e4c405 100644
> --- a/db/sb.c
> +++ b/db/sb.c
> @@ -379,6 +379,11 @@ uuid_f(
> progname);
> return 0;
> }
> + if (xfs_sb_version_needsrepair(&mp->m_sb)) {
> + dbprintf(_("%s: filesystem needs xfs_repair\n"),
> + progname);
> + return 0;
> + }
>
> if (!strcasecmp(argv[1], "generate")) {
> platform_uuid_generate(&uu);
> @@ -501,6 +506,7 @@ do_label(xfs_agnumber_t agno, char *label)
> memcpy(&lbl[0], &tsb.sb_fname, sizeof(tsb.sb_fname));
> return &lbl[0];
> }
> +
> /* set label */
> if ((len = strlen(label)) > sizeof(tsb.sb_fname)) {
> if (agno == 0)
> @@ -543,6 +549,12 @@ label_f(
> return 0;
> }
>
> + if (xfs_sb_version_needsrepair(&mp->m_sb)) {
> + dbprintf(_("%s: filesystem needs xfs_repair\n"),
> + progname);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> dbprintf(_("writing all SBs\n"));
> for (ag = 0; ag < mp->m_sb.sb_agcount; ag++)
> if ((p = do_label(ag, argv[1])) == NULL) {
> @@ -584,6 +596,7 @@ version_help(void)
> " 'version attr1' - enable v1 inline extended attributes\n"
> " 'version attr2' - enable v2 inline extended attributes\n"
> " 'version log2' - enable v2 log format\n"
> +" 'version needsrepair' - flag filesystem as requiring repair\n"
> "\n"
> "The version function prints currently enabled features for a filesystem\n"
> "according to the version field of its primary superblock.\n"
> @@ -620,6 +633,117 @@ do_version(xfs_agnumber_t agno, uint16_t version, uint32_t features)
> return 1;
> }
>
> +struct v5feat {
> + uint32_t compat;
> + uint32_t ro_compat;
> + uint32_t incompat;
> + uint32_t log_incompat;
> +};
> +
> +static void
> +get_v5_features(
> + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> + struct v5feat *feat)
> +{
> + feat->compat = mp->m_sb.sb_features_compat;
> + feat->ro_compat = mp->m_sb.sb_features_ro_compat;
> + feat->incompat = mp->m_sb.sb_features_incompat;
> + feat->log_incompat = mp->m_sb.sb_features_log_incompat;
> +}
> +
> +static bool
> +set_v5_features(
> + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> + const struct v5feat *upgrade)
> +{
> + struct xfs_sb tsb;
> + struct v5feat old;
> + xfs_agnumber_t agno = 0;
> + xfs_agnumber_t revert_agno = 0;
> +
> + if (upgrade->compat == mp->m_sb.sb_features_compat &&
> + upgrade->ro_compat == mp->m_sb.sb_features_ro_compat &&
> + upgrade->incompat == mp->m_sb.sb_features_incompat &&
> + upgrade->log_incompat == mp->m_sb.sb_features_log_incompat)
> + return true;
> +
> + /* Upgrade primary superblock. */
> + if (!get_sb(agno, &tsb))
> + goto fail;
> +
> + dbprintf(_("Upgrading V5 filesystem\n"));
> +
> + /* Save old values */
> + old.compat = tsb.sb_features_compat;
> + old.ro_compat = tsb.sb_features_ro_compat;
> + old.incompat = tsb.sb_features_incompat;
> + old.log_incompat = tsb.sb_features_log_incompat;
> +
This could reuse get_v5_features() if it accepted an xfs_sb, no?
> + /* Update feature flags and force user to run repair before mounting. */
> + tsb.sb_features_compat |= upgrade->compat;
> + tsb.sb_features_ro_compat |= upgrade->ro_compat;
> + tsb.sb_features_incompat |= upgrade->incompat;
> + tsb.sb_features_log_incompat |= upgrade->log_incompat;
> + tsb.sb_features_incompat |= XFS_SB_FEAT_INCOMPAT_NEEDSREPAIR;
Isn't this set in upgrade->incompat already? Looking ahead in the
series, I see more feature bit update patches, so perhaps this is
intentional... If so, should it be unconditional for all feature bit
updates? (A comment around this would be nice.)
Also, it looks like we could just do assignments instead of OR'ing so
this could support clearing a flag. I suppose that would stamp over
different secondary superblock values, but does that really matter?
Another small v5feat -> sb set helper to reduce the repetition through
the rest of the function would also be nice.
> + libxfs_sb_to_disk(iocur_top->data, &tsb);
> +
> + /* Write new primary superblock */
> + write_cur();
> + if (!iocur_top->bp || iocur_top->bp->b_error)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + /* Update the secondary superblocks, or revert. */
> + for (agno = 1; agno < mp->m_sb.sb_agcount; agno++) {
> + if (!get_sb(agno, &tsb)) {
> + agno--;
> + goto revert;
> + }
> +
> + /* Set features on secondary suepr. */
> + tsb.sb_features_compat |= upgrade->compat;
> + tsb.sb_features_ro_compat |= upgrade->ro_compat;
> + tsb.sb_features_incompat |= upgrade->incompat;
> + tsb.sb_features_log_incompat |= upgrade->log_incompat;
> + libxfs_sb_to_disk(iocur_top->data, &tsb);
> + write_cur();
> +
> + /* Write or abort. */
> + if (!iocur_top->bp || iocur_top->bp->b_error)
> + goto revert;
> + }
> +
> + /* All superblocks updated, update the incore values. */
> + mp->m_sb.sb_features_compat |= upgrade->compat;
> + mp->m_sb.sb_features_ro_compat |= upgrade->ro_compat;
> + mp->m_sb.sb_features_incompat |= upgrade->incompat;
> + mp->m_sb.sb_features_log_incompat |= upgrade->log_incompat;
> +
> + dbprintf(_("Upgraded V5 filesystem. Please run xfs_repair.\n"));
> + return true;
> +
> +revert:
> + /*
> + * Try to revert feature flag changes, and don't worry if we fail.
> + * We're probably in a mess anyhow, and the admin will have to run
> + * repair anyways.
> + */
> + for (revert_agno = 0; revert_agno <= agno; revert_agno++) {
> + if (!get_sb(revert_agno, &tsb))
> + continue;
> +
> + tsb.sb_features_compat = old.compat;
> + tsb.sb_features_ro_compat = old.ro_compat;
> + tsb.sb_features_incompat = old.incompat;
> + tsb.sb_features_log_incompat = old.log_incompat;
> + libxfs_sb_to_disk(iocur_top->data, &tsb);
> + write_cur();
> + }
> +fail:
> + dbprintf(
> +_("Failed to upgrade V5 filesystem at AG %d, please run xfs_repair.\n"), agno);
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static char *
> version_string(
> xfs_sb_t *sbp)
> @@ -691,15 +815,12 @@ version_string(
> strcat(s, ",INOBTCNT");
> if (xfs_sb_version_hasbigtime(sbp))
> strcat(s, ",BIGTIME");
> + if (xfs_sb_version_needsrepair(sbp))
> + strcat(s, ",NEEDSREPAIR");
> return s;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * XXX: this only supports reading and writing to version 4 superblock fields.
> - * V5 superblocks always define certain V4 feature bits - they are blocked from
> - * being changed if a V5 sb is detected, but otherwise v5 superblock features
> - * are not handled here.
> - */
> +/* Upgrade a superblock to support a feature. */
> static int
> version_f(
> int argc,
> @@ -710,6 +831,9 @@ version_f(
> xfs_agnumber_t ag;
>
> if (argc == 2) { /* WRITE VERSION */
> + struct v5feat v5features;
> +
> + get_v5_features(mp, &v5features);
>
> if ((x.isreadonly & LIBXFS_ISREADONLY) || !expert_mode) {
> dbprintf(_("%s: not in expert mode, writing disabled\n"),
> @@ -717,8 +841,23 @@ version_f(
> return 0;
> }
>
> + if (xfs_sb_version_needsrepair(&mp->m_sb)) {
> + dbprintf(_("%s: filesystem needs xfs_repair\n"),
> + progname);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
Similar to the above question, I wonder whether we should allow clearing
the flag. Eh, I suppose rewriting the superblock via db should still
work, right?
> /* Logic here derived from the IRIX xfs_chver(1M) script. */
> - if (!strcasecmp(argv[1], "extflg")) {
> + if (!strcasecmp(argv[1], "needsrepair")) {
> + if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb)) {
> + dbprintf(
> + _("needsrepair flag cannot be enabled on pre-V5 filesystems\n"));
> + exitcode = 1;
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + v5features.incompat |= XFS_SB_FEAT_INCOMPAT_NEEDSREPAIR;
> + } else if (!strcasecmp(argv[1], "extflg")) {
> switch (XFS_SB_VERSION_NUM(&mp->m_sb)) {
> case XFS_SB_VERSION_1:
> version = 0x0004 | XFS_SB_VERSION_EXTFLGBIT;
> @@ -809,6 +948,11 @@ version_f(
> mp->m_sb.sb_versionnum = version;
> mp->m_sb.sb_features2 = features;
> }
> +
> + if (!set_v5_features(mp, &v5features)) {
> + exitcode = 1;
> + return 1;
> + }
> }
>
> if (argc == 3) { /* VERSIONNUM + FEATURES2 */
> diff --git a/db/xfs_admin.sh b/db/xfs_admin.sh
> index bd325da2..41a14d45 100755
> --- a/db/xfs_admin.sh
> +++ b/db/xfs_admin.sh
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ DB_OPTS=""
> REPAIR_OPTS=""
> USAGE="Usage: xfs_admin [-efjlpuV] [-c 0|1] [-L label] [-U uuid] device [logdev]"
>
Update with the new -O flag..?
> -while getopts "efjlpuc:L:U:V" c
> +while getopts "efjlpuc:L:O:U:V" c
> do
> case $c in
> c) REPAIR_OPTS=$REPAIR_OPTS" -c lazycount="$OPTARG;;
> @@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ do
> l) DB_OPTS=$DB_OPTS" -r -c label";;
> L) DB_OPTS=$DB_OPTS" -c 'label "$OPTARG"'";;
> p) DB_OPTS=$DB_OPTS" -c 'version projid32bit'";;
> + O) DB_OPTS=$DB_OPTS" -c 'version "$OPTARG"'";
> + # Force repair to run by adding a single space to REPAIR_OPTS
> + REPAIR_OPTS="$REPAIR_OPTS ";;
Is a full/destructive repair technically required for a post-feature bit
change? IOW, is metadata reconstruction required or are we just checking
the fs is consistent? I ask because otherwise a destructive repair would
do things like reconstruct btrees and whatnot, which might be overkill,
take too long for a user, OOM, etc. Obviously we need to clear
NEEDSREPAIR, but I wonder if there's room for a special repair mode that
might elide some of the other changes if the filesystem is actually
coherent. For example, a "verify" mode where nomodify == true except
for clearing NEEDSREPAIR if the fs is coherent (otherwise a normal run
is required).
> u) DB_OPTS=$DB_OPTS" -r -c uuid";;
> U) DB_OPTS=$DB_OPTS" -c 'uuid "$OPTARG"'";;
> V) xfs_db -p xfs_admin -V
> @@ -48,6 +51,7 @@ case $# in
> fi
> if [ -n "$REPAIR_OPTS" ]
> then
> + echo "Running xfs_repair to ensure filesystem consistency."
Is this necessary or a debug leftover?
Brian
> # Hide normal repair output which is sent to stderr
> # assuming the filesystem is fine when a user is
> # running xfs_admin.
> diff --git a/man/man8/xfs_admin.8 b/man/man8/xfs_admin.8
> index 8afc873f..b423981d 100644
> --- a/man/man8/xfs_admin.8
> +++ b/man/man8/xfs_admin.8
> @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ xfs_admin \- change parameters of an XFS filesystem
> [
> .B \-eflpu
> ] [
> +.BI \-O " feature"
> +] [
> .BR "\-c 0" | 1
> ] [
> .B \-L
> @@ -103,6 +105,19 @@ The filesystem label can be cleared using the special "\c
> " value for
> .IR label .
> .TP
> +.BI \-O " feature"
> +Add a new feature to the filesystem.
> +Only one feature can be specified at a time.
> +Features are as follows:
> +.RS 0.7i
> +.TP
> +.B needsrepair
> +If this is a V5 filesystem, flag the filesystem as needing repairs.
> +Until
> +.BR xfs_repair (8)
> +is run, the filesystem will not be mountable.
> +.RE
> +.TP
> .BI \-U " uuid"
> Set the UUID of the filesystem to
> .IR uuid .
> diff --git a/man/man8/xfs_db.8 b/man/man8/xfs_db.8
> index 58727495..7331cf19 100644
> --- a/man/man8/xfs_db.8
> +++ b/man/man8/xfs_db.8
> @@ -971,6 +971,11 @@ may toggle between
> and
> .B attr2
> at will (older kernels may not support the newer version).
> +The filesystem can be flagged as requiring a run through
> +.BR xfs_repair (8)
> +if the
> +.B needsrepair
> +option is specified and the filesystem is formatted with the V5 format.
> .IP
> If no argument is given, the current version and feature bits are printed.
> With one argument, this command will write the updated version number
>
