On 6/28/16 3:57 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:34:39AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/16 4:48 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:24:58PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> kernel commit 5ef828c4
>>>> xfs: avoid false quotacheck after unclean shutdown
>>>>
>>>> made xfs_sb_from_disk() also call xfs_sb_quota_from_disk
>>>> by default.
>>>>
>>>> However, when this was merged to libxfs, existing separate
>>>> calls to libxfs_sb_quota_from_disk remained, and calling it
>>>> twice in a row on a V4 superblock leads to issues, because:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if (sbp->sb_qflags & XFS_PQUOTA_ACCT) {
>>>> ...
>>>> sbp->sb_pquotino = sbp->sb_gquotino;
>>>> sbp->sb_gquotino = NULLFSINO;
>>>>
>>>> and after the second call, we have set both pquotino and gquotino
>>>> to NULLFSINO.
>>>>
>>>> Fix this by making it safe to call twice, and also remove the extra
>>>> calls to libxfs_sb_quota_from_disk.
>>>>
>>>> This is only spotted when running xfstests with "-m crc=0" because
>>>> the sb_from_disk change came about after V5 became default, and
>>>> the above behavior only exists on a V4 superblock.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
>>>> index 45db6ae..44f3e3e 100644
>>>> --- a/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
>>>> +++ b/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
>>>> @@ -316,13 +316,16 @@ xfs_sb_quota_from_disk(struct xfs_sb *sbp)
>>>> XFS_PQUOTA_CHKD : XFS_GQUOTA_CHKD;
>>>> sbp->sb_qflags &= ~(XFS_OQUOTA_ENFD | XFS_OQUOTA_CHKD);
>>>>
>>>> - if (sbp->sb_qflags & XFS_PQUOTA_ACCT) {
>>>> + if (sbp->sb_qflags & XFS_PQUOTA_ACCT &&
>>>> + sbp->sb_gquotino != NULLFSINO) {
>>>
>>> Although I agree with this check, shouldn't we report some sort of error when it
>>> happens? Once, it's not supposed to happen, and, might be a sign of corruption?
>>
>> I dunno, it would also happen if it gets called twice, which is intentionally
>> made harmless by this change. We don't warn on free(NULL) for example...
>>
>
> Well, I don't 100% agree with not having a warning here, but it doesn't make the
> patch less valuable.
Thanks Carlos -
Maybe I don't understand what you want to warn about.
If we get here with:
if (sbp->sb_qflags & XFS_PQUOTA_ACCT &&
sbp->sb_gquotino != NULLFSINO) {
that means we have an on-disk super without the pquotino field,
the XFS_PQUOTA_ACCT flag is set, and so the gquotino field was
used for the project quota; this is valid, and there is
nothing to warn about in this case.
If we get here with:
if (sbp->sb_qflags & XFS_PQUOTA_ACCT &&
sbp->sb_gquotino == NULLFSINO) {
that means we have an on-disk super without the pquotino field,
the XFS_PQUOTA_ACCT flag is set, and the gquotino was not set
to a valid value. This could happen either from a bad on-disk
value, or it could mean that we called the function twice in a
row. Without maintaining more state, we can't know which, and
warning the user about a programming error wouldn't be helpful.
Actually, repair already handles this case elsewhere:
quota_sb_check(xfs_mount_t *mp)
{
/*
* if the sb says we have quotas and we lost both,
* signal a superblock downgrade. that will cause
* the quota flags to get zeroed. (if we only lost
* one quota inode, do nothing and complain later.)
*
* if the sb says we have quotas but we didn't start out
* with any quota inodes, signal a superblock downgrade.
In the case where quota flags are on but all quota inodes are
zero, it silently clears the quota flags. Whether or not that
should be silent I'm not sure, but I think that is separate
from this patch.
Thanks,
-Eric
> Reviewed-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> I don't think it needs a warning.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
