Message-ID: <20180926002909.GC3829@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 17:29:09 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc:     Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix quota info to adjust recovered data

On 09/21, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/9/21 5:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 09/20, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/9/20 6:38, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 09/19, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2018/9/19 0:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2018/9/18 10:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2018/9/18 9:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 09/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/13 3:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 9:40, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 9:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 8:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 4:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fsck.f2fs is able to recover the quota structure, since roll-forward recovery
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can recover it based on previous user information.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get it, both fsck and kernel recover quota file based all inodes'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uid/gid/prjid, if {x}id didn't change, wouldn't those two recovery result be the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that, but had to add this, since I was encountering quota errors right
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after getting some files recovered. And, I thought it'd make it more safe to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fsck after roll-forward recovery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, let me test again without this patch for a while.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, I just got a fsck failure right after some files recovered.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make sure, do you test with "f2fs: guarantee journalled quota data by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint"? if not, I think there is no guarantee that f2fs can recover
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote info into correct quote file, because, in last checkpoint, quota file
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may was corrupted/inconsistent. Right?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, I forget to mention that, I add a patch to fsck to let it noticing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG flag, and by default, fsck will fix corrupted quote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> file if the flag is set, but w/o this flag, quota file is still corrupted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> detected by fsck, I guess there is bug in v8.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In v8, there are two cases we didn't guarantee quota file's consistence:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush time in block_operation exceed a threshold.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. dquot subsystem error occurs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For above case, fsck should repair the quota file by default.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I got another failure and it seems CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG was not set
> >>>>>>>>>>> during the recovery. So, we have something missing in the recovery in terms
> >>>>>>>>>>> of quota updates.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I checked the code, just found one suspected place:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> find_fsync_dnodes()
> >>>>>>>>>>  - f2fs_recover_inode_page
> >>>>>>>>>>   - inc_valid_node_count
> >>>>>>>>>>    - dquot_reserve_block  dquot info is not initialized now
> >>>>>>>>>>  - add_fsync_inode
> >>>>>>>>>>   - dquot_initialize
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think we should reserve block for inode block after dquot_initialize(), can
> >>>>>>>>>> you confirm this?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Let me test this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> >From b90260bc577fe87570b1ef7b134554a8295b1f6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>>>>>>>> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:14:41 -0700
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: count inode block for recovered files
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If a new file is recovered, we missed to reserve its inode block.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I remember, in order to keep line with other filesystem, unlike on-disk, we
> >>>>>>>> have to keep backward compatibilty, in memory we don't account block number
> >>>>>>>> for f2fs' inode block, but only account inode number for it, so here like
> >>>>>>>> we did in inc_valid_node_count(), we don't need to do this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Okay, I just hit the error again w/o your patch. Another one coming to my mind
> >>>>>>> is that caused by uid/gid change during recovery. Let me try out your patch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess we should update dquot and inode's uid/gid atomically under
> >>>>>> lock_op() in f2fs_setattr() to prevent corruption on sys quota file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> v9 can pass all xfstest cases and por_fsstress case w/ sys quota file
> >>>>>> enabled, but w/ normal quota file, I got one regression reported by
> >>>>>> generic/232, I fixed in v10, will do some tests and release it later.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that, my fsck can fix corrupted quota file automatically once
> >>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG is set.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hit failures again with your v9 w/ sysfile quota and modified fsck to detect
> >>>>
> >>>> That's strange, in my environment, before v9, I always encounter corrupted
> >>>> quota sysfile after step 9), after v9, I never hit failure again.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) enable fault injection
> >>>> 2) run fsstress
> >>>> 3) call shutdowon
> >>>> 4) kill fsstress
> >>>> 5) unmount
> >>>> 6) fsck
> >>>> 7) mount
> >>>> 8) umount
> >>>> 9) fsck
> >>>> 10) go 1).
> >>>>
> >>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG to fix the partition. Note that, if I set NEED_FSCK
> >>>>> flag in roll-forward recovery, everything is fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do the test based on codes in my git tree, could you check the result
> >>>> again based on my code? in where I just disable nat_bits recovery, not
> >>>> sure, in step 6) fsck can break some thing in image.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chao/linux.git/log/?h=f2fs-dev
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, I just send the fsck code, could you check that too?
> >>>>
> >>>> And I'd like to know your mount option and mkfs option, could you list for me?
> >>>
> >>> I'm just doing this.
> >>> https://github.com/jaegeuk/xfstests-f2fs/blob/f2fs/run.sh#L220
> >>
> >> I just sent one patch to fix POR issue which missed to recover uid/gid of
> >> inode.
> >>
> >> [PATCH] f2fs: fix to recover inode's uid/gid during POR
> >>
> >> After applying this patch, I can reproduce sys quota file corruption... let
> >> me figure out the solution.
> > 
> > Okay.
> 
> Could you try v11, no quota corruption in my test now.

Chao,

I missed your fsck patch to recover this. Could you post it as well?

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Can you test v9 first? I didn't encounter quota corruption with your
> >>>>>>>> testcase right now. Will check it in cell phone environment.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 5 +++++
> >>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 56d34193a74b..bff5cf730e13 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ static struct fsync_inode_entry *add_fsync_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>>>>>>>>  		err = dquot_alloc_inode(inode);
> >>>>>>>>>  		if (err)
> >>>>>>>>>  			goto err_out;
> >>>>>>>>> +		err = dquot_reserve_block(inode, 1);
> >>>>>>>>> +		if (err) {
> >>>>>>>>> +			dquot_drop(inode);
> >>>>>>>>> +			goto err_out;
> >>>>>>>>> +		}
> >>>>>>>>>  	}
> >>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>  	entry = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(fsync_entry_slab, GFP_F2FS_ZERO);
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > 
> > .
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists