> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:44:53AM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 05:50:56PM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:44:45PM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > From: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When abnormal drop_nlink are detected on the inode,
> > > > > > shutdown filesystem, to avoid corruption propagation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 9 +++++++++
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > > > > index 9e62cc500..40cc106ae 100644
> > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > > > > > @@ -919,6 +919,15 @@ xfs_droplink(
> > > > > > xfs_trans_t *tp,
> > > > > > xfs_inode_t *ip)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (VFS_I(ip)->i_nlink == 0) {
> > > > > > + xfs_alert(ip->i_mount,
> > > > > > + "%s: Deleting inode %llu with no links.",
> > > > > > + __func__, ip->i_ino);
> > > > > > + tp->t_flags |= XFS_TRANS_DIRTY;
> > > > > Marking the transaction dirty is not necessary.
> > > > > Otherwise this seems fine.
> > > > Another strategy:
> > > > Set nlink to an invalid value(like XFS_NLINK_PINNED), and
> > > > Complete this transaction before shutdown fs. To make sure
> > > > nlink not be zero. If the nlink of a directory are zero, it may
> > > > be cleaned up.
> > > > Is that appropriate?
> > > No, all I'm asking you to do is drop dirtying of the transaction
> > > from this patch because it is a) unnecessary and b) a layering
> > > violation.
> > > It is unnecessary because the transaction will almost always be
> > > dirty before we get to xfs_droplink(). In the cases where it isn't
> > > dirty (e.g. xfs_remove() on a directory) we explicitly check that
> > > nlink == 2 before proceeding to call xfs_droplink(). Hence we can't
> > > actually get to xfs_droplink() with a clean transaction, and so
> > If the corrupted inode is a parent directory, when remove its
> > subdirectory, the parent's nlink will be decreased to 0. But the
> > transaction of subdirectory removing is not dirty (There are not
> > check about the parent directory). In this situation, the transaction
> > will be failed and the filesystem will be alive.
> Yes, and that's perfectly fine. The transaction cancelling code has
> worked this way for the past 20 years or so...
> Indeed, you said your customer wants the system to stay alive if possible,
> right? Well, so do we.
> If the parent directory has a bogus nlink count, and that prevents
> us from removing items from the directory, then as long as we
> haven't dirtied anything and we can return a -EFSCORRUPTED error to
> userspace to say the unlink failed and we don't have to shut the
> filesystem down. All we now have is a directory that has objects in
> it that can't be removed....
> For a higher level perspective, we only need to shut the filesystem
> down if we cannot safely back out of the modification operation that
> was requested. Whilst the transaction is clean, we can safely return
> errors to userspace and continue operation because everything in
> memory and on disk is still consistent, even if we have found a
> corruption in non-crtical the metadata. Just returning an error to
> userspace can't make the problem any worse.
> This also is how we treat corruption that is found during read
> operations - we return -EFSCORRUPTED to userspace because something in
> the directory or inode we were trying to read from was corrupted. We
> do not need to shut down the filesystem because there is
> no risk of making things worse or the in-memory filesystem state
> getting out of sync with the on-disk state.
> It is only when we are trying to modify something that corruption
> becomes a problem with fatal consequences. Once we've made a
> modification, the in-memory state is different to the on-disk state
> and whilst we are in that state any corruption we discover becomes
> fatal. That is because there is no way to reconcile the changes
> we've already made in memory with what is on-disk - we don't know
> that the in-memory changes are good because we tripped over
> corruption, and so we must not propagate bad in-memory state and
> metadata to disk over the top of what may be still be uncorrupted
> metadata on disk.
> This "in memory matches on disk" state is effectively what the dirty
> flag in the transaction tracks, and it's done as part of the normal
> running of a transaction as items are tagged for logging. Marking a
> transaction dirty that has nothign tagged for logging is actually an
> incorrect state; we may handle it correctly, but it should never
> actually occur and we should definitely not be open coding dirtying
> of transactions to create this state.
> IOWs, the transaction modification error handling paths already do
> the right thing according to the state carried by the transaction at
> the time the error was encountered.
Thanks for your detailed explainations, I get it.
> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
