Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix incorrect usage of xfs_btree_check_block

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

 



On 2022/11/8 0:58, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 07:37:09PM +0800, Guo Xuenan wrote:
xfs_btree_check_block contains a tag XFS_ERRTAG_BTREE_CHECK_{L,S}BLOCK,
it is a fault injection tag, better not use it in the macro ASSERT.

Since with XFS_DEBUG setting up, we can always trigger assert by `echo 1
/sys/fs/xfs/${disk}/errortag/btree_chk_{s,l}blk`.
It's confusing and strange.
Please be more specific about how this is confusing or strange.
I meant in current code, the ASSERT will alway happen,when we
`echo 1 > /sys/fs/xfs/${disk}/errortag/btree_chk_{s,l}blk`.
xfs_btree_islastblock
  ->ASSERT(block && xfs_btree_check_block(cur, block, level, bp) == 0);
    ->xfs_btree_check_{l/s}block
      ->XFS_TEST_ERROR(false, mp, XFS_ERRTAG_BTREE_CHECK_{S,L}BLOCK)
we can use error injection to trigger this ASSERT.
I think ASERRT macro and error injection are to find some effective problems, not to create some kernel panic. So, putting the error injection function in
ASSERT is a little strange.

Instead of using it in ASSERT, replace it with
xfs_warn.

Fixes: 27d9ee577dcc ("xfs: actually check xfs_btree_check_block return in xfs_btree_islastblock")
Signed-off-by: Guo Xuenan <guoxuenan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h | 7 +++++--
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
index eef27858a013..637513087c18 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
@@ -556,8 +556,11 @@ xfs_btree_islastblock(
  	struct xfs_buf		*bp;
block = xfs_btree_get_block(cur, level, &bp);
-	ASSERT(block && xfs_btree_check_block(cur, block, level, bp) == 0);
-
+	ASSERT(block);
+#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
+	if (xfs_btree_check_block(cur, block, level, bp))
+		xfs_warn(cur->bc_mp, "%s: xfs_btree_check_block() error.", __func__);
+#endif
...because this seems like open-coding ASSERT, possibly without the
panic on errors part.
yes,exactly!I also think it can be deleted, but i have no idea if this is necessary,
I just retain it in this fix patch; looking forward to your decision :)
--D

  	if (cur->bc_flags & XFS_BTREE_LONG_PTRS)
  		return block->bb_u.l.bb_rightsib == cpu_to_be64(NULLFSBLOCK);
  	return block->bb_u.s.bb_rightsib == cpu_to_be32(NULLAGBLOCK);
--
2.31.1

.

--
Guo Xuenan [OS Kernel Lab]
-----------------------------
Email: guoxuenan@xxxxxxxxxx




[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