Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:04:23 -0500
From:   Ashlie Martinez <ashmrtn@...xas.edu>
To:     Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vijay Chidambaram <vvijay03@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fstest: regression test for ext4 crash consistency bug

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On 2017/09/30 22:15, Ashlie Martinez wrote:
>>
>> Hi Xiao,
>>
>> I am a student at the University of Texas at Austin. Some researchers
>> in the computer science department at UT, myself included, have
>> recently been working to develop a file system crash consistency test
>> harness called CrashMonkey [1][2]. I have been working on the
>> CrashMonkey project since it was started late last year. With
>> CrashMonkey we have also been able to reproduce the incorrect i_size
>> error you noted but we have not been able to reproduce the other
>> output that Amir found. CrashMonkey works by logging and replaying
>> operations for a workload, so it should not be sensitive to
>> differences in timing that could be caused by things like KVM+virtio.
>> I also did a few experiments with Amir's new xfstests test 456 (both
>> with and without KVM and virtio) and I was unable to reproduce the
>> output noted in the xfstest. I have not spent a lot of time looking
>> into the cause of the bug that Amir found and it is rather unfortunate
>> that I was unable to reproduce it with either xfstests or CrashMonkey.
>
> Hi Ashlie,
>
> Thanks for your detailed comments.
>
> 1) Do you think the output that Amir noted in xfstests is a false positive?

It almost seems that way, though to be honest, I don't think I know
enough about 1. the setup used by Amir and 2. all the internal working
of KVM+virtio to say for sure. One thing I have identified as being a
potential source of false positives is code in the kernel to remap the
block number sent to device drives to something relative to the start
of a block device, not the start of a partition. I'm thinking this
could cause trouble if 1. a partition higher than the first partition
is monitored by dm-log-writes, 2. the block numbers are recorded
verbatim in dm-log-writes, and 3. the dm-log-writes log is replayed on
a different device with different partitions (or possibly the same
device, but a different partition). I know some other undergrad
students at UT on the CrashMonkey team are looking into this right
now, but I have not had time to test this myself. The offending code
in the kernel is in the completely misnamed
`generic_make_request_checks` function which has given the CrashMonkey
team trouble in the past. Links to that function and the remapping
function it calls are below.

http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/block/blk-core.c#L2041
http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/block/blk-core.c#L1902

>
> 2) About the output that both i and you reproduced,  did you look into it
> and find its root cause?

I have not looked to find the root cause of the issue that we both
reliably reproduce.

>
> Thanks,
> Xiao Yang
>>
>> At any rate, CrashMonkey is still under development, so it does have
>> some caveats. First, we are running with a fixed random seed in our
>> default RandomPermuter (used to generate crash states) to aid
>> development. Second, the branch with the reproduction of this ext4
>> regression bug in CrashMonkey [3] will yield a few false positives due
>> to the way CrashMonkey works and how fsx runs. These false positives
>> are due to CrashMonkey generating crash states where the directories
>> for files used for the test have not be fsync-ed in the file system.
>> The top of the README in the CrashMonkey branch with this bug
>> reproduction outlines how we determined these were false positives
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/utsaslab/crashmonkey
>> [2]
>> https://www.usenix.org/conference/hotstorage17/program/presentation/martinez
>> [3] https://github.com/utsaslab/crashmonkey/tree/ext4_regression_bug
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Amir Goldstein<amir73il@...il.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@...fujitsu.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2017/08/27 18:44, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This test is motivated by a bug found in ext4 during random crash
>>>>> consistency tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> This test uses device mapper flakey target to demonstrate the bug
>>>>> found using device mapper log-writes target.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein<amir73il@...il.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Ted,
>>>>>
>>>>> While working on crash consistency xfstests [1], I stubmled on what
>>>>> appeared to be an ext4 crash consistency bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tests I used rely on the log-writes dm target code written
>>>>> by Josef Bacik, which had little exposure to the wide community
>>>>> as far as I know.  I wanted to prove to myself that the found
>>>>> inconsistency was not due to a test bug, so I bisected the failed
>>>>> test to the minimal operations that trigger the failure and wrote
>>>>> a small independent test to reproduce the issue using dm flakey target.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following fsck error is reliably reproduced by replaying some fsx
>>>>> ops
>>>>> on overlapping file regions, then emulating a crash, followed by mount,
>>>>> umount and fsck -nf:
>>>>>
>>>>>    ./ltp/fsx -d --replay-ops /tmp/8995.fsxops /mnt/scratch/testfile
>>>>>    1 write 0x137dd thru    0x21445 (0xdc69 bytes)
>>>>>    2 falloc        from 0xb531 to 0x16ade (0xb5ad bytes)
>>>>>    3 collapse      from 0x1c000 to 0x20000, (0x4000 bytes)
>>>>>    4 write 0x3e5ec thru    0x3ffff (0x1a14 bytes)
>>>>>    5 zero  from 0x20fac to 0x27d48, (0x6d9c bytes)
>>>>>    6 mapwrite      0x216ad thru    0x23dfb (0x274f bytes)
>>>>>    All 7 operations completed A-OK!
>>>>>    _check_generic_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/ssd-scratch is
>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>>    *** fsck.ext4 output ***
>>>>>    fsck from util-linux 2.27.1
>>>>>    e2fsck 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
>>>>>    Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
>>>>>    Inode 12, end of extent exceeds allowed value
>>>>>            (logical block 33, physical block 33441, len 7)
>>>>>    Clear? no
>>>>>    Inode 12, i_blocks is 184, should be 128.  Fix? no
>>>>
>>>> Hi Amir,
>>>>
>>>> I always get the following output when running your xfstests test case
>>>> 501.
>>>
>>> Now merged as test generic/456
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> e2fsck 1.42.9 (28-Dec-2013)
>>>> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
>>>> Inode 12, i_size is 147456, should be 163840. Fix? no
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Could you tell me how to get the expected output as you reported?
>>>
>>> I can't say I am doing anything special, but I can say that I get the
>>> same output as you did when running the test inside kvm-xfstests.
>>> Actually, I could not reproduce ANY of the the crash consistency bugs
>>> inside kvm-xfstests. Must be something to do with different timing of
>>> IO with KVM+virtio disks??
>>>
>>> When running on my laptop (Ubuntu 16.04 with latest kernel)
>>> on a 10G SSD volume, I always get the error reported above.
>>> I just re-verified with latest stable e2fsprogs (1.43.6).
>>>
>>> Amir.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists