On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 10:42:17AM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:29:51AM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 10:54:11PM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > In the old kernel version, this situation was > > > > > > > encountered, but I don't know how it happened. It was already a scene > > > > > > > with directory errors: "Too many links". > > > > How do you overflow the directory link count in XFS? You can't fit > > > > 2^31 unique names in the directory data segment - the directory will > > > > ENOSPC at 32GB of name data, and that typically occurs with at most > > > > 300-500 million dirents (depending on name lengths) in the > > > > directory. > > > > IOWs, normal operation shouldn't be able overflow the directory link > > > > count at all, and so underruns shouldn't occur, either. > > > Customer's explanation: in the nlink incorrect directory, not many directories > > > will be created, and normally there are only 2 regular files. > > > And only found this one directory with incorrect nlink when xfs_repair. > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: Phase 2 - using internal log > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: - zero log... > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: - scan filesystem freespace and inode maps... > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: agi unlinked bucket 9 is 73 in ag 22 (inode=23622320201) > > So the directory inode is on the unlinked list, as I suggested it > > would be. > Yes. > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: - 21:46:00: scanning filesystem freespace - 32 of 32 allocation groups done > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: - found root inode chunk > > > ... > > How many other inodes were repaired or trashed or moved to > > lost+found? > Just (inode=23622320201) repaired. So only one inode on the unlinked list, and it's the inode with the bad link count. > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: Phase 7 - verify and correct link counts... > > > systemd-fsck[5635]: resetting inode 23622320201 nlinks from 4294967284 to 2 > > The link count of the directory inode on the unlinked list was > > actually -12, so this isn't an "off by one" error. It's still just 2 > > adjacent bits being cleared when they shouldn't have been, though. > > What is the xfs_info (or mkfs) output for the filesystem that this > > occurred on? > meta-data=/dev/mapper/vg_gbaseserver-lv_gbaseserver isize=512 agcount=32, agsize=78643168 blks > = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 > = crc=1 finobt=0 spinodes=0 Ok, crcs are enabled, so it's likely not storage level corruption. > data = bsize=4096 blocks=2516581376, imaxpct=5 > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1 > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=521728, version=2 > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > > ...... > > > If it's just a incorrect count of one dicrectory, after ignore it, the fs > > > can work normally(with error). Is it worth stopping the entire fs > > > immediately for this condition? > > The inode is on the unlinked list with a non-zero link count. That > > means it cannot be removed from the unlinked list (because the inode > > will not be freed during inactivation) and so the unlinked list is > > effectively corrupt. Anything that removes an inode or creates a > > O_TMPFILE or uses RENAME_WHITEOUT can trip over this corrupt > > unlinked list and have things go from bad to worse. Hence the > If protect the nlink not to underflow(minimum value of nlink is 0), > does it means can avoid unlinked list to be corrupted？ The VFS already warns when an underflow occurs - stuff has already gone wrong at this point, and if we are going to do anything then we should be shutting the filesystem down at this point because something is corrupt either in memory or on disk, and continuing after underflow propagates the corruption and makes things worse... The fact that your customer's system didn't log warnings about the link count going from 0 to -1 when the link count was -12 on disk (like it should if this happens via xfs_droplink() -> drop_link()) it really brings into question how this situation silently occurred.... Until we actually understand the root cause of the bad value and why it occurred silently in a decade old kernel, trying to fix it in a current upstream kernel is premature. > > corruption is not limited to the directory inode or operations > > involving that directory inode. We generally shut down the > > filesystem when this sort of corruption occurs - it needs to be > > repaired ASAP, otherwise other stuff will randomly fail and > > you'll still end up with a shut down filesystem. Better to fail > > fast in corruption cases than try to ignore it and vainly hope > > that everything will work out for the best.... Cheers, Dave. > > -- > Directly shutdown filesystem is really a relatively safe approach. > But for customer, it's suddenly and unprepared. If keep fs > available as possible (If can be achieved) and allow delayed > repair, then customer can make more preparations before do that. > Do you preferred more to shutdown filesystem directly? Yes, if we've detected corruption in a modification situation (such as an unlink) we need to shut down the filesystem. Propagating a corruption from in-memory to on-disk is the worst thing we can do. As such, XFS has had a policy since the mid 1990s that we shut down the filesystem immediately rather than risk propagating a corruption into on-disk structures. This will change in the future as we start to leverage online repair in response to corruption detections like this. But that's not a magic bullet, and that does not help the situation with problems on RHEL-7 era kernels.... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
