Date:	Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:56:15 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>
Cc:	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add inode checksum support to ext4

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:16:12AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-07-27, at 2:27 AM, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 12:27:48PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> >> Beyond checksumming the inode itself, it
> >> would be more useful to checksum the extent indexing blocks, as the ext3
> >> corruption actually happen at the indirect block.  
> >> 
> >> The idea is to reduce the eh_max (the max # of extents stored in this
> >> block) to save some space to store the checksums in the block, 
> >> 
> >> /*
> >> * Each block (leaves and indexes), even inode-stored has header.
> >> */
> >> struct ext4_extent_header {
> >>        __le16  eh_magic;       /* probably will support different
> >> formats */
> >>        __le16  eh_entries;     /* number of valid entries */
> >>        __le16  eh_max;         /* capacity of store in entries */
> >>        __le16  eh_depth;       /* has tree real underlying blocks? */
> >>        __le32  eh_generation;  /* generation of the tree */
> > 
> > Does anyone use eh_generation?  Linux 3.0 shows no users and it didn't look like
> > the snapshot patches do either.  If nobody intends to start using this field,
> > (part of) it could become eh_checksum
> 
> We use eh_generation in Lustre to detect if the extent tree is being changed
> while it is unlocked.
> 
> In the past, the discussion about adding checksums to the index and extent
> blocks was about using an ext4_extent_tail that contained not only the
> checksum of the block, but also a back-pointer to the inode/generation of the
> inode using this block.
> 
> That would allow e2fsck to verify that it is using the correct index/extent
> blocks and not pointing to a stale block that belonged to some other inode.
> 
> Since the header and index/extent entries are always 3 *__u32 in size, the
> extent tail can always be 4 * __u32 in size yet only consume a single slot in
> the block. There of course is no reason to put an extent tail inside the
> inode itself.

Does anybody have any objection to using crc32c (which we can hardware
accelerate on new Intel boxen) over crc16?  I think it'll be pretty easy to use
some of the reserved space in the group descriptor to store checksums of the
block and inode bitmaps.  Adding tails to the extent tree blocks seems a bit
trickier than that, but not a big deal, though I guess I'll have to reshuffle
the extent tree to free up space at the end of the block.

I was also wondering what people think of adding checksums to directory files?
I think that it's possible to put a checksum in each directory block -- for
blocks containing a linear array of actual directory entries, we could zero out
the space past the end of the array and put a checksum at the very end of the
block.  For the dx_node/dx_root blocks, we could probably use the space
occupied by the last dx_entry to store the checksum.  Obviously, we'd have to
move whatever's at the end of the block elsewhere, but then, we have to do that
for the extent tree too.  Basically, the last 4 bytes become the checksum after
whatever's occupying the space is relocated. :)

It looks like there's sufficient unused space in ext4_xattr_header to add a
checksum.

Also -- should I create separate rocompat feature flags for each metadata
object that I add checksums to?  Or just have one flag that covers them all?

Ok, enough crazy ideas for now...

--D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists