Re: [Bug 216110] New: rmdir sub directory cause i_nlink of parent directory down from 0 to 0xffffffff

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

 



On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 08:27:38AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216110
> 
>             Bug ID: 216110
>            Summary: rmdir sub directory cause i_nlink of parent directory
>                     down from 0 to 0xffffffff
>            Product: File System
>            Version: 2.5
>     Kernel Version: linux-3.10.0-957.el7

Please contact your RHEL7   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ account representative for
assistance in triaging this bug.

--D

>           Hardware: Other
>                 OS: Linux
>               Tree: Mainline
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: high
>           Priority: P1
>          Component: XFS
>           Assignee: filesystem_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>           Reporter: hexiaole1994@xxxxxxx
>         Regression: No
> 
> 1. synptom
> when user executed mkdir command under parent directory, mkdir command prompted
> "Too many links".
> 
> 
> 2. basic analysis
> (1)use "getconf LINK_MAX ." under parent directory, the max i_nlink of the
> xfs(the filesystem that parent directory belongs) is 2147483647, but the
> i_nlink of the parent directory now is 4294967109, because the mkdir command
> will check if the i_nlink of the parent directory is lower than the LINK_MAX,
> in our environment this check failed, so mkdir command prompt "Too many links".
> (2)we "cd" into the parent directory, and execute "ls|wc" to accounting the
> total files of the parent directory, the result is 308875
> (3)the i_nlink by definition is "the number of links to the inode from
> directories", a newly created directory has i_nlink of 2, and the i_nlink of
> this newly created directory will plus 1 once there has a sub directory created
> under it(the sub directory's ".." points to parent directory cause the i_nlink
> of the parent directory plus 1), so the i_nlink of the parent directory can
> also reflect the number of the sub directories(the number of sub directory =
> i_nlink of the parent - 2). the i_nlink of the parent directory now is
> 4294967109, if this i_nlink is valid, the number of the sub directoryes might
> be 4294967109, but like the (2) shows, the total files(include directories)
> under the parent directory is 308875. so we can assert the i_nlink metadata of
> the parent direcotry was corrupted.
> (4)in the dmesg file of the sos_report, we saw an call trace that related to
> this corrupted i_nlink of parent directory:
> ...
> [26038585.616782] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [26038585.616794] WARNING: CPU: 22 PID: 21088 at fs/inode.c:284
> drop_nlink+0x3e/0x50
> [26038585.616796] Modules linked in: binfmt_misc tcp_diag inet_diag 8021q garp
> mrp stp llc bonding vfat fat ipmi_ssif amd64_edac_mod edac_mce_amd kvm joydev
> irqbypass ses enclosure pcspkr scsi_transport_sas sg ipmi_si ipmi_devintf
> ipmi_msghandler i2c_piix4 acpi_cpufreq ip_tables xfs libcrc32c sd_mod
> crc_t10dif crct10dif_generic crct10dif_common ast crc32c_intel drm_kms_helper
> syscopyarea sysfillrect igb ixgbe sysimgblt fb_sys_fops ttm i2c_algo_bit mdio
> ptp drm pps_core megaraid_sas dca drm_panel_orientation_quirks ahci libahci
> libata nfit libnvdimm dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod
> [26038585.616850] CPU: 22 PID: 21088 Comm: gbased Not tainted
> 3.10.0-957.el7.hg.3.x86_64 #1
> [26038585.616851] Hardware name: Sugon H620-G30/65N32-US, BIOS 0QL1001207
> 03/03/2021
> [26038585.616853] Call Trace:
> [26038585.616861]  [<ffffffff86161de9>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> [26038585.616866]  [<ffffffff85a976c8>] __warn+0xd8/0x100
> [26038585.616868]  [<ffffffff85a9780d>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x20
> [26038585.616870]  [<ffffffff85c5df5e>] drop_nlink+0x3e/0x50
> [26038585.616904]  [<ffffffffc03f5d08>] xfs_droplink+0x28/0x60 [xfs]
> [26038585.616927]  [<ffffffffc03f922f>] xfs_remove+0x29f/0x310 [xfs]
> [26038585.616930]  [<ffffffff85c595a0>] ? take_dentry_name_snapshot+0xf0/0xf0
> [26038585.616951]  [<ffffffffc03f3bb7>] xfs_vn_unlink+0x57/0xa0 [xfs]
> [26038585.616953]  [<ffffffff85c4dcac>] vfs_rmdir+0xdc/0x150
> [26038585.616956]  [<ffffffff85c53151>] do_rmdir+0x1f1/0x220
> [26038585.616959]  [<ffffffff85c436be>] ? ____fput+0xe/0x10
> [26038585.616964]  [<ffffffff85abe820>] ? task_work_run+0xc0/0xe0
> [26038585.616966]  [<ffffffff85c54386>] SyS_rmdir+0x16/0x20
> [26038585.616970]  [<ffffffff86174ddb>] system_call_fastpath+0x22/0x27
> [26038585.616972] ---[ end trace 23639deaf902c67e ]---
> ...
> (5)the call trace is from the "WARN_ON" function below:
> void drop_nlink(struct inode *inode)
> {
>         WARN_ON(inode->i_nlink == 0);
>         inode->__i_nlink--;
>         if (!inode->i_nlink)
>                 atomic_long_inc(&inode->i_sb->s_remove_count);
> }
> (6)the call trace above shows at some time earlier, the i_nlink of the parent
> direcotry substracted from 0 by 1, because the i_nlink is 32-bit unsigned int,
> it became 0xffffffff, and from then, the parent direcory can only decreasing
> the i_nlink rather than increasing due to the LINK_MAX.
> 
> 
> 3. the root cause of corrupted i_nlink of parent directory
> (1)we saw another call trace in dmesg file of the same process that cause the
> call trace of "SyS_rmdir" above:
> ...
> [18317578.683304] gbased invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0,
> oom_score_adj=0
> [18317578.683311] gbased cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-7
> [18317578.683315] CPU: 11 PID: 17701 Comm: gbased Not tainted
> 3.10.0-957.el7.hg.3.x86_64 #1
> [18317578.683318] Hardware name: Sugon H620-G30/65N32-US, BIOS 0QL1001207
> 03/03/2021
> [18317578.683320] Call Trace:
> [18317578.683330]  [<ffffffff86161de9>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> [18317578.683334]  [<ffffffff8615c812>] dump_header+0x90/0x229
> [18317578.683339]  [<ffffffff85bba2f4>] oom_kill_process+0x254/0x3d0
> [18317578.683342]  [<ffffffff85bb9d63>] ? oom_unkillable_task+0x93/0x120
> [18317578.683345]  [<ffffffff85bb9e46>] ? find_lock_task_mm+0x56/0xc0
> [18317578.683347]  [<ffffffff85bbab36>] out_of_memory+0x4b6/0x4f0
> [18317578.683350]  [<ffffffff8615d316>] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x5d6/0x724
> [18317578.683353]  [<ffffffff85bc0f15>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x405/0x420
> [18317578.683357]  [<ffffffff85c11185>] alloc_pages_vma+0xb5/0x200
> [18317578.683361]  [<ffffffff85bce3d0>] shmem_alloc_page+0x70/0xc0
> [18317578.683366]  [<ffffffff85ac2dab>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x2b/0x40
> [18317578.683369]  [<ffffffff85acbb1b>] ? __wake_up_common+0x5b/0x90
> [18317578.683374]  [<ffffffff85d7c6c4>] ? __radix_tree_lookup+0x84/0xf0
> [18317578.683377]  [<ffffffff85da00ea>] ? __percpu_counter_compare+0x2a/0x90
> [18317578.683379]  [<ffffffff85bd12e1>] shmem_getpage_gfp+0x451/0x840
> [18317578.683382]  [<ffffffff85bd19a4>] shmem_write_begin+0x54/0x80
> [18317578.683384]  [<ffffffff85bb5d94>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x124/0x2c0
> [18317578.683386]  [<ffffffff85bb86d2>] __generic_file_aio_write+0x1e2/0x400
> [18317578.683389]  [<ffffffff85bb8949>] generic_file_aio_write+0x59/0xa0
> [18317578.683392]  [<ffffffff85c40633>] do_sync_write+0x93/0xe0
> [18317578.683395]  [<ffffffff85c41120>] vfs_write+0xc0/0x1f0
> [18317578.683397]  [<ffffffff85c41f3f>] SyS_write+0x7f/0xf0
> [18317578.683401]  [<ffffffff86174ddb>] system_call_fastpath+0x22/0x27
> [18317578.683402] Mem-Info:
> [18317578.683486] active_anon:59939847 inactive_anon:3882578 isolated_anon:0
> ...
> (2)the call trace shows this process was killed due to the "oom", we suspect if
> at the time this process being kill, its other threads(other than the
> "SyS_write" thread that the call trace shows) was doing concurrent rmdir or
> mkdir under the parent direcotry, the kill will cause the corrupted i_nlink of
> the parent directory, and we simulate this "oom" situation where multithread do
> concurrent mkdir and rmdir under parent directory, but the problem can not
> reproduce at all.
> (3)the dmesg file also shows an error related to "power saving mode":
> ...
> [23647870.874579] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 3d on CPU 56.
> [23647870.874624] Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
> [23647870.874650] Dazed and confused, but trying to continue
> ...
> (4)we are simulating this "power saving mode" error to determine if this can
> cause the corrupted i_nlink problem, this is in progressing.
> (5)the problematic environment now repaired by hand throught the xfs_db tool,
> we manually modify the corrupted i_nlink of the parent directory to the correct
> value.
> (6)in short, by now we still confusing why the corrupted i_nlink of the parent
> can happen.
> 
> 
> 4. attachment descriptions
> (1)the screenshot of the problematic environment that shows the corrupted
> i_nlink of the parent directory.
> (2)the dmesg file.
> 
> 
> 5. other informations
> (1)the similar problem that caused on ext4 filesystem:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/4febf11b-31ea-82a1-bf08-b6bebe08bc75@xxxxxxxxxx/T/
> 
> -- 
> You may reply to this email to add a comment.
> 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are watching the assignee of the bug.



[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