Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: only reset incore inode health state flags when reclaiming an inode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 08:12:41PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> While running some fuzz tests on inode metadata, I noticed that the
> filesystem health report (as provided by xfs_spaceman) failed to report
> the file corruption even when spaceman was run immediately after running
> xfs_scrub to detect the corruption.  That isn't the intended behavior;
> one ought to be able to run scrub to detect errors in the ondisk
> metadata and be able to access to those reports for some time after the
> scrub.
> 
> After running the same sequence through an instrumented kernel, I
> discovered the reason why -- scrub igets the file, scans it, marks it
> sick, and ireleases the inode.  When the VFS lets go of the incore
> inode, it moves to RECLAIMABLE state.  If spaceman igets the incore
> inode before it moves to RECLAIM state, iget reinitializes the VFS
> state, clears the sick and checked masks, and hands back the inode.  At
> this point, the caller has the exact same incore inode, but with all the
> health state erased.
> 
> In other words, we're erasing the incore inode's health state flags when
> we've decided NOT to sever the link between the incore inode and the
> ondisk inode.  This is wrong, so we need to remove the lines that zero
> the fields from xfs_iget_cache_hit.
> 
> As a precaution, we add the same lines into xfs_reclaim_inode just after
> we sever the link between incore and ondisk inode.  Strictly speaking
> this isn't necessary because once an inode has gone through reclaim it
> must go through xfs_inode_alloc (which also zeroes the state) and
> xfs_iget is careful to check for mismatches between the inode it pulls
> out of the radix tree and the one it wants.
> 
> Fixes: 6772c1f11206 ("xfs: track metadata health status")
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

I think I reviewed this the last time around..

Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>

>  fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c |    5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> index 396cc54ca03f..c3f912a9231b 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> @@ -523,9 +523,6 @@ xfs_iget_cache_hit(
>  				XFS_INO_TO_AGINO(pag->pag_mount, ino),
>  				XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG);
>  		inode->i_state = I_NEW;
> -		ip->i_sick = 0;
> -		ip->i_checked = 0;
> -
>  		spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
>  		spin_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
>  	} else {
> @@ -979,6 +976,8 @@ xfs_reclaim_inode(
>  	spin_lock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
>  	ip->i_flags = XFS_IRECLAIM;
>  	ip->i_ino = 0;
> +	ip->i_sick = 0;
> +	ip->i_checked = 0;
>  	spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
>  
>  	xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 




[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux