On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:43:33PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > But then the second question is: what's the maximum height of a dabtree > that indexes an xattr structure? I don't think there's any maximum > limit within XFS on the number of attrs you can set on a file, is there? Nope. But the attr btree is a different beast to the dirv2 structure - it's a hashed index btree with the xattr records in the leaf, it's not an index of a fixed max size external data structure. > At least until you hit the iext_max_count check. I think the VFS > institutes its own limit of 64k for the llistxattr buffer, but that's > about all I can think of. > I suppose right now the xattr structure can't grow larger than 2^(16+21) > blocks in size, which is 2^49 bytes, but that's a mix of attr leaves and > dabtree blocks, unlike directories, right? Yes. ALso remote xattr blocks, which aren't stored in the dabtree at all, but are indexed by the attr fork BMBT address space. So I think for XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH = 5, the xattr tree with a 4kB block size (minimum allowed, IIRC), we can index approximately (500^4) individual xattrs in the btree index (assuming 4 levels of index and 1 level of leaf nodes containing xattrs). My math calculates that to be about 62.5 billion xattrs before we run out of index space in a 5 level tree with a 4kB block size. Hence I suspect we'll run out of attr fork extents even on a 32 bit extent count before we run out of xattr index space. Also, 62.5 billion xattrs is more links than we can have to a single inode (4billion), so we're not going to exhaust the xattr index space just with parent pointers... > > immediately how many blocks can be in the XFS_DIR2_LEAF_SPACE > > segement.... > > > > We also know the maximum number of individual directory blocks in > > the 32GB segment (fixed at 32GB / dir block size), so the free space > > array is also a fixed size at (32GB / dir block size / free space > > entries per block). > > > > It's easy to just use (96GB / block size) and that will catch most > > corruptions with no risk of a false positive detection, but we could > > quite easily refine this to something like: > > > > data (32GB + > > leaf btree blocks(XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) + > > freesp (32GB / free space records per block)) > > frags / filesystem block size > > I think we ought to do a more careful study of XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH, *nod* ISTR that Chandan had already done some of this when he characterised the attr fork btree behaviour w.r.t. suitabililty for large numbers of parent pointers before starting this extent count work. > but > it could become more involved than we think. In the interest of keeping > this series moving, can we start with a new verifier check that > (di_nextents < that formula from above) and then refine that based on > whatever improvements we may or may not come up with for > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH? Yup, that sounds like a good plan. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
