linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: ratelimit recovery messages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0341eb2c-6788-1c85-2036-ed57b7f99dab@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 15:37:49 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>
CC:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: ratelimit recovery messages

On 2019/5/28 11:30, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Sahitya,
> 
> On 2019/5/28 11:17, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Sahitya,
>>
>> On 2019/5/28 11:05, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 09:23:15AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> Hi Sahitya,
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/5/27 21:10, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>>>> Ratelimit the recovery logs, which are expected in case
>>>>> of sudden power down and which could result into too
>>>>> many prints.
>>>>
>>>> FYI
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/973837/
>>>>
>>>> IMO, we need those logs to provide evidence during trouble-shooting of file data
>>>> corruption or file missing problem...
>>>>
>>> In one of the logs, I have noticed there were ~400 recovery prints in the
>>
>> I think its order of magnitudes is not such bad, if there is redundant logs such
>> as the one in do_recover_data(), we can improve it.
>>
>>> kernel bootup. I noticed your patch above and with that now we can always get
>>> the error returned by f2fs_recover_fsync_data(), which should be good enough
>>> for knowing the status of recovered files I thought. Do you think we need
>>> individually each file status as well?
>>
>> Yes, I think so, we need them for the detailed info. :)
> 
> I personally agree with Chao's suggestion as well.
> 
> Sometimes huawei got stuck into rare potential f2fs stability issues,
> which is hard to say whether it is a clearly hardware or software issues.
> 
> These messages is used as some evidences for us to guess what happened.
> it'd better to handle carefully...

Correct, thanks for the detailed explanation. :)

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>> So I suggest we can keep log as it is in recover_dentry/recover_inode, and for
>>>> the log in do_recover_data, we can record recovery info [isize_kept,
>>>> recovered_count, err ...] into struct fsync_inode_entry, and print them in
>>>> batch, how do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2:
>>>>>  - fix minor formatting and add new line for printk
>>>>>
>>>>>  fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>>>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
>>>>> index e04f82b..60d7652 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
>>>>> @@ -188,8 +188,8 @@ static int recover_dentry(struct inode *inode, struct page *ipage,
>>>>>  		name = "<encrypted>";
>>>>>  	else
>>>>>  		name = raw_inode->i_name;
>>>>> -	f2fs_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_NOTICE,
>>>>> -			"%s: ino = %x, name = %s, dir = %lx, err = %d",
>>>>> +	printk_ratelimited(KERN_NOTICE
>>>>> +			"%s: ino = %x, name = %s, dir = %lx, err = %d\n",
>>>>>  			__func__, ino_of_node(ipage), name,
>>>>>  			IS_ERR(dir) ? 0 : dir->i_ino, err);
>>>>>  	return err;
>>>>> @@ -292,8 +292,8 @@ static int recover_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
>>>>>  	else
>>>>>  		name = F2FS_INODE(page)->i_name;
>>>>>  
>>>>> -	f2fs_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_NOTICE,
>>>>> -		"recover_inode: ino = %x, name = %s, inline = %x",
>>>>> +	printk_ratelimited(KERN_NOTICE
>>>>> +			"recover_inode: ino = %x, name = %s, inline = %x\n",
>>>>>  			ino_of_node(page), name, raw->i_inline);
>>>>>  	return 0;
>>>>>  }
>>>>> @@ -642,11 +642,11 @@ static int do_recover_data(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct inode *inode,
>>>>>  err:
>>>>>  	f2fs_put_dnode(&dn);
>>>>>  out:
>>>>> -	f2fs_msg(sbi->sb, KERN_NOTICE,
>>>>> -		"recover_data: ino = %lx (i_size: %s) recovered = %d, err = %d",
>>>>> -		inode->i_ino,
>>>>> -		file_keep_isize(inode) ? "keep" : "recover",
>>>>> -		recovered, err);
>>>>> +	printk_ratelimited(KERN_NOTICE
>>>>> +			"recover_data: ino = %lx (i_size: %s) recovered = %d, err = %d\n",
>>>>> +			inode->i_ino,
>>>>> +			file_keep_isize(inode) ? "keep" : "recover",
>>>>> +			recovered, err);
>>>>>  	return err;
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>>
> .
>