On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 06:49:14PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 03:08:16PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:20:29AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > xchk_get_inode is not quite the right function to be calling from the
> > > inode scrubber setup function. The common get_inode function either
> > > gets an inode and installs it in the scrub context, or it returns an
> > > error code explaining what happened. This is acceptable for most file
> > > scrubbers because it is not in their scope to fix corruptions in the
> > > inode core and fork areas that cause iget to fail.
> > >
> > > Dealing with these problems is within the scope of the inode scrubber,
> > > however. If iget fails with EFSCORRUPTED, we need to xchk_inode to flag
> > > that as corruption. Since we can't get our hands on an incore inode, we
> > > need to hold the AGI to prevent inode allocation activity so that
> > > nothing changes in the inode metadata.
> > >
> > > Looking ahead to the inode core repair patches, we will also need to
> > > hold the AGI buffer into xrep_inode so that we can make modifications to
> > > the xfs_dinode structure without any other thread swooping in to
> > > allocate or free the inode.
> > >
> > > Adapt the xchk_get_inode into xchk_setup_inode since this is a one-off
> > > use case where the error codes we check for are a little different, and
> > > the return state is much different from the common function.
> >
> > The code look fine, but...
> >
> > ... doesn't this mean that xchk_setup_inode() and xchk_get_inode()
> > now are almost identical apart from the xchk_prepare_iscrub() bits?
>
> Yes, they're /nearly/ identical in the helper functions they call, but
> they're not so similar in intent and how they handle @error values:
>
> xchk_setup_inode prepares to check or repair an inode record, so it must
> continue the scrub operation even if the inode/inobt verifiers cause
> xfs_iget to return EFSCORRUPTED. This is done by attaching the locked
> AGI buffer to the scrub transaction and returning 0 to move on to the
> actual scrub. (Later, the online inode repair code will also want the
> xfs_imap structure so that it can reset the ondisk xfs_dinode
> structure.)
>
> xchk_get_inode retrieves an inode on behalf of a scrubber that operates
> on an incore inode -- data/attr/cow forks, directories, xattrs,
> symlinks, parent pointers, etc. If the inode/inobt verifiers fail and
> xfs_iget returns EFSCORRUPTED, we want to exit to userspace (because the
> caller should be fix the inode first) and drop everything we acquired
> along the way.
>
> A behavior common to both functions is that it's possible that xfs_scrub
> asked for a scrub-by-handle concurrent with the inode being freed or the
> passed-in inumber is invalid. In this case, we call xfs_imap to see if
> the inobt index thinks the inode is allocated, and return ENOENT
> ("nothing to check here") to userspace if this is not the case. The
> imap lookup is why both functions call xchk_iget_agi.
Ok, so given all this, all I really want then is better names for
the functions, as "setup" and "get" don't convey any of this. :)
Perhaps xchk_setup_inode() -> xchk_iget_for_record_check() and
xchk_get_inode() -> xchk_iget_for_scrubbing(). This gives an
indication taht they are being used for different purposes, and the
implementation is tailored to the requirements of those specific
operations....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
