Message-ID: <ad28be8b-361e-550f-50c4-1744e60ff9c5@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:28:07 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>
CC:     <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: fix sbi->extent_list corruption issue

On 2018/12/14 22:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/14, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:36:08AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2018/12/12 11:17, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 05:47:31PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> On 2018/12/1 4:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:42:39AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018/11/27 8:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/26, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> When there is a failure in f2fs_fill_super() after/during
>>>>>>>>>> the recovery of fsync'd nodes, it frees the current sbi and
>>>>>>>>>> retries again. This time the mount is successful, but the files
>>>>>>>>>> that got recovered before retry, still holds the extent tree,
>>>>>>>>>> whose extent nodes list is corrupted since sbi and sbi->extent_list
>>>>>>>>>> is freed up. The list_del corruption issue is observed when the
>>>>>>>>>> file system is getting unmounted and when those recoverd files extent
>>>>>>>>>> node is being freed up in the below context.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> list_del corruption. prev->next should be fffffff1e1ef5480, but was (null)
>>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>>> kernel BUG at kernel/msm-4.14/lib/list_debug.c:53!
>>>>>>>>>> task: fffffff1f46f2280 task.stack: ffffff8008068000
>>>>>>>>>> lr : __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0xb4
>>>>>>>>>> pc : __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0xb4
>>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>>> Call trace:
>>>>>>>>>> __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0xb4
>>>>>>>>>> __release_extent_node+0xb0/0x114
>>>>>>>>>> __free_extent_tree+0x58/0x7c
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_shrink_extent_tree+0xdc/0x3b0
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_leave_shrinker+0x28/0x7c
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_put_super+0xfc/0x1e0
>>>>>>>>>> generic_shutdown_super+0x70/0xf4
>>>>>>>>>> kill_block_super+0x2c/0x5c
>>>>>>>>>> kill_f2fs_super+0x44/0x50
>>>>>>>>>> deactivate_locked_super+0x60/0x8c
>>>>>>>>>> deactivate_super+0x68/0x74
>>>>>>>>>> cleanup_mnt+0x40/0x78
>>>>>>>>>> __cleanup_mnt+0x1c/0x28
>>>>>>>>>> task_work_run+0x48/0xd0
>>>>>>>>>> do_notify_resume+0x678/0xe98
>>>>>>>>>> work_pending+0x8/0x14
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fix this by cleaning up inodes, extent tree and nodes of those
>>>>>>>>>> recovered files before freeing up sbi and before next retry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>>>>> -call evict_inodes() and f2fs_shrink_extent_tree() to cleanup inodes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h     |  1 +
>>>>>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/shrinker.c |  2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/super.c    | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>>>>>> index 1e03197..aaee63b 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3407,6 +3407,7 @@ struct rb_entry *f2fs_lookup_rb_tree_ret(struct rb_root_cached *root,
>>>>>>>>>>  bool f2fs_check_rb_tree_consistence(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>>>>>>>  						struct rb_root_cached *root);
>>>>>>>>>>  unsigned int f2fs_shrink_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink);
>>>>>>>>>> +unsigned long __count_extent_cache(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
>>>>>>>>>>  bool f2fs_init_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_extent *i_ext);
>>>>>>>>>>  void f2fs_drop_extent_tree(struct inode *inode);
>>>>>>>>>>  unsigned int f2fs_destroy_extent_node(struct inode *inode);
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c b/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 9e13db9..7e3c13b 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static unsigned long __count_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>>  	return count > 0 ? count : 0;
>>>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> -static unsigned long __count_extent_cache(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>> +unsigned long __count_extent_cache(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>>>>  	return atomic_read(&sbi->total_zombie_tree) +
>>>>>>>>>>  				atomic_read(&sbi->total_ext_node);
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>> index af58b2c..769e7b1 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3016,6 +3016,16 @@ static void f2fs_tuning_parameters(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>>  	sbi->readdir_ra = 1;
>>>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> +static void f2fs_cleanup_inodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> +	struct super_block *sb = sbi->sb;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +	sync_filesystem(sb);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This writes another checkpoint, which would not be what this retrial intended.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, checkpoint will not be triggered due to SBI_POR_DOING flag check
>>>>>>>> as below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int f2fs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> 	if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>> 		return -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And also all dirty data/node won't be persisted due to SBI_POR_DOING flag,
>>>>>>>> IIUC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Chao for the clarification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you still have any further concerns or comments on this patch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you try the below first?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --  How about adding a condition in f2fs_may_extent_tree() when adding extents?
>>>>>> -- Likewise, if (shrinker is not registered) return false;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can fix what you described directly, I don't want to rely on such the
>>>>>> assumptions saying we won't do checkpoint. This flow literally says syncing
>>>>>> and evicting cached objects, which opposed to what we'd like to drop all caches
>>>>>> and restart fill_super again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me consider this as a final resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jaegeuk,
>>>>>
>>>>> Still I want to ask, what kind of scenario we have to add retry logic in
>>>>> fill_super for? As in android scenario, it must be extreme rare case that
>>>>> system runs out-of-memory in boot time...at least, I didn't get any kind of
>>>>> report like that.
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> Hi Sahitya,
>>>
>>> Thanks for letting me know that, I git-blamed the code, and found the
>>> original intention is like what you described:
>>>
>>> commit ed2e621a95d704e6a4e904cc00524e8cbddda0c2
>>> Author: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
>>> Date:   Fri Aug 8 15:37:41 2014 -0700
>>>
>>>     f2fs: give a chance to mount again when encountering errors
>>>
>>>     This patch gives another chance to try mount process when we encounter
>>> an error.
>>>     This makes an effect on the roll-forward recovery failures as well.
>>>
>>> But I doubt that if we failed in recovery, maybe there is corruption in
>>> this image, would it be better to fail the mount, and let user fsck it and
>>> retry the mount? otherwise, the corruption may be expanded...
> 
> The problem was there was no way to recover roll-forward area by fsck. IOWs,
> mount was failing all the time. I don't think roll-forward itself can corrupt

I got your concern, IMO, if mount fails, it will be better to let user
decide how to handle it.

If mount fails due to:

1) recovery, user can run fsck and/or try disable_roll_forward or
norecovery option in another mount;
2) -EINVAL caused by sanity, user can run fsck and retry mount.
3) -ENOMEM caused low memory in system, user can add more memory and retry
mount.
...

Thanks,

> the image more. Please report, if you have any issue on this.>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> How do you think about this? If you think it is okay, then I will fix the
>> sbi->extent_list corruption issue, by removing the retry logic. Otherwise,
>> I will fix it in the extent handling as you have suggested earlier.
> 
> I'd like to keep retry logic, so could you please test what I suggested above?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my case, the first boot up has a failure in recovery as below -
>>>>
>>>> F2FS-fs (mmcblk0p75): find_fsync_dnodes: detect looped node chain, blkaddr:1979471, next:1979472
>>>> F2FS-fs (mmcblk0p75): Cannot recover all fsync data errno=-22
>>>>
>>>> But in the second attempt, retry will be set to false and because of that
>>>> recover_fsync_data() is skipped. This helped mount to be successful in
>>>> the second attempt. 
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Sahitya.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about adding a condition in f2fs_may_extent_tree() when adding extents?
>>>>>>>>> Likewise, if (shrinker is not registered) return false;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +	shrink_dcache_sb(sb);
>>>>>>>>>> +	evict_inodes(sb);
>>>>>>>>>> +	f2fs_shrink_extent_tree(sbi, __count_extent_cache(sbi));
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>  static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>>>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>>>>  	struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi;
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3402,6 +3412,8 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>>>>>>>>>  	 * falls into an infinite loop in f2fs_sync_meta_pages().
>>>>>>>>>>  	 */
>>>>>>>>>>  	truncate_inode_pages_final(META_MAPPING(sbi));
>>>>>>>>>> +	/* cleanup recovery and quota inodes */
>>>>>>>>>> +	f2fs_cleanup_inodes(sbi);
>>>>>>>>>>  	f2fs_unregister_sysfs(sbi);
>>>>>>>>>>  free_root_inode:
>>>>>>>>>>  	dput(sb->s_root);
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3445,7 +3457,6 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>>>>>>>>>  	/* give only one another chance */
>>>>>>>>>>  	if (retry) {
>>>>>>>>>>  		retry = false;
>>>>>>>>>> -		shrink_dcache_sb(sb);
>>>>>>>>>>  		goto try_onemore;
>>>>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>>>>  	return err;
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>>>>>>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> --
>> Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
> 
> .
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists