On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 11:11:24AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06 2017, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 03:26:41PM +0800, alexwu wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Recently a data integrity issue about skip_copy was found. We are able > >> to reproduce it and found the root cause. This data integrity issue > >> might happen if there are other layers between file system and raid5. > >> > >> [How to Reproduce] > >> > >> 1. Create a raid5 named md0 first (with skip_copy enable), and wait md0 > >> resync done which ensures that all data and parity are synchronized > >> 2. Use lvm tools to create a logical volume named lv-md0 over md0 > >> 3. Format an ext4 file system on lv-md0 and mount on /mnt > >> 4. Do some db operations (e.g. sqlite insert) to write data through /mnt > >> 5. When those db operations finished, we do the following command > >> "echo check > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_action" to check mismatch_cnt, > >> it is very likely that we got mismatch_cnt != 0 when check finished > >> > >> [Root Cause] > >> > >> After tracing code and more experiments, it is more proper to say that > >> it's a problem about backing_dev_info (bdi) instead of a bug about > >> skip_copy. > >> > >> We notice that: > >> 1. skip_copy counts on BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES to ensure that bio's page > >> will not be modified before raid5 completes I/O. Thus we can skip copy > >> page from bio to stripe cache > >> 2. The ext4 file system will call wait_for_stable_page() to ask whether > >> the mapped bdi requires stable writes > >> > >> Data integrity happens because: > >> 1. When raid5 enable skip_copy, it will only set it's own bdi required > >> BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES, but this information will not propagate to > >> other bdi between file system and md > >> 2. When ext4 file system check stable writes requirement by calling > >> wait_for_stable_page(), it can only see the underlying bdi's > >> capability > >> and cannot see all related bdi > >> > >> Thus, skip_copy works fine if we format file system directly on md. > >> But data integrity issue happens if there are some other block layers (e.g. > >> dm) > >> between file system and md. > >> > >> [Result] > >> > >> We do more tests on different storage stacks, here are the results. > >> > >> The following settings can pass the test thousand times: > >> 1. raid5 with skip_copy enable + ext4 > >> 2. raid5 with skip_copy disable + ext4 > >> 3. raid5 with skip_copy disable + lvm + ext4 > >> > >> The following setting will fail the test in 10 rounds: > >> 1. raid5 with skip_copy enable + lvm + ext4 > >> > >> I think the solution might be let all bdi can communicate through different > >> block layers, > >> then we can pass BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES information if we enable skip_copy. > >> But the current bdi structure is not allowed us to do that. > >> > >> What would you suggest to do if we want to make skip_copy more reliable ? > > > > Very interesting problem. Looks this isn't raid5 specific. stacked device with > > block integrity enabled could expose the same issue. > > > > I'm cc Jens and Neil to check if they have good idea. Basically the problem is > > for stacked disk, the under layer disk has BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES enabled, but > > upper layer doesn't enable it. The under layer disk could be a raid5 with > > skip_copy enabled or could be any disk with block integrity enabled (which will > > enable BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES). Currently we don't propagate the flag to upper > > layer disk. > > > > A solution is blk_set_stacking_limits propagate the flag at queue setup, we > > then don't allow the flag changing in runtime later. The raid5 skip_copy > > interface changes the flag in runtime which probably isn't safe. > > > > Thanks, > > Shaohua > > It has always been messy to handle dependencies from the bottom of the > stack affecting things closer to the filesystem. > We used to have issues with alignments and request sizes, and got rid of > those problems by requiring all devices to accept all bio sizes, and > providing support for them to split as necessary. > This is a similar sort of problem, but also quite different. > > It is different because the STABLE_WRITES requirement doesn't affect the > sort of bio that is passed down, but instead affect the way it is waited > for. > > I have thought a few times that it would be useful if the "bd_claim" > functionality included a callback so the claimed device could notify the > claimer that things had changed. > Then raid5 could notice that it has been claimed, and call the callback > when it changes BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES. If the claimer is a stacked > device, it can re-run blk_set_stacking_limits and call its own claimer. > > There are probably some interesting locking issues around this but, to > me, it seems like the most likely path to a robust solution. Fixing blk_set_stacking_limits is the first step for sure. The callback approach definitely looks the right way if we want to change BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES at runtime. I'm not sure if runtime change is allowed though because there is a race condition here. The IO for dirty page probably doesn't hit to block layer yet for whatever reason right before wait_for_stable_page. At that time if BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES isn't set, we do nothing in wait_for_stable_page. After wait_for_stable_page, the BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES is set and IO is on the way, but fs could change the page, which breaks the syntax of stable page. Thanks, Shaohua -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
