| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9ee4d5964a444d238a216e1ac0986d01@h3c.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:38:17 +0000
From: Likai <li.kai4@....com>
To: Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@...il.com>,
Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"mark@...heh.com" <mark@...heh.com>,
"jlbec@...lplan.org" <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
"chge@...ux.alibaba.com" <chge@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2] ocfs2: call journal flush to mark
journal as empty after journal recovery when mount
On 2019/12/16 21:36, Joseph Qi wrote:
>
> On 19/12/16 20:12, Likai wrote:
>> On 2019/12/16 18:02, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>> On 19/12/12 14:00, Kai Li wrote:
>>>> If journal is dirty when mount, it will be replayed but jbd2 sb
>>>> log tail cannot be updated to mark a new start because
>>>> journal->j_flag has already been set with JBD2_ABORT first
>>>> in journal_init_common. When a new transaction is committed, it
>>>> will be recored in block 1 first(journal->j_tail is set to 1 in
>>>> journal_reset).If emergency restart happens again before journal
>>>> super block is updated unfortunately, the new recorded trans will
>>>> not be replayed in the next mount.
>>>>
>>>> The following steps describe this procedure in detail.
>>>> 1. mount and touch some files
>>>> 2. these transactions are committed to journal area but not checkpointed
>>>> 3. emergency restart
>>>> 4. mount again and its journals are replayed
>>>> 5. journal super block's first s_start is 1, but its s_seq is not updated
>>>> 6. touch a new file and its trans is committed but not checkpointed
>>>> 7. emergency restart again
>>>> 8. mount and journal is dirty, but trans committed in 6 will not be
>>>> replayed.
>>>>
>>>> This exception happens easily when this lun is used by only one node. If it
>>>> is used by multi-nodes, other node will replay its journal and its
>>>> journal super block will be updated after recovery like what this patch
>>>> does.
>>>>
>>>> ocfs2_recover_node->ocfs2_replay_journal.
>>>>
>>>> The following jbd2 journal can be generated by touching a new file after
>>>> journal is replayed, and seq 15 is the first valid commit, but first seq
>>>> is 13 in journal super block.
>>>> logdump:
>>>> Block 0: Journal Superblock
>>>> Seq: 0 Type: 4 (JBD2_SUPERBLOCK_V2)
>>>> Blocksize: 4096 Total Blocks: 32768 First Block: 1
>>>> First Commit ID: 13 Start Log Blknum: 1
>>>> Error: 0
>>>> Feature Compat: 0
>>>> Feature Incompat: 2 block64
>>>> Feature RO compat: 0
>>>> Journal UUID: 4ED3822C54294467A4F8E87D2BA4BC36
>>>> FS Share Cnt: 1 Dynamic Superblk Blknum: 0
>>>> Per Txn Block Limit Journal: 0 Data: 0
>>>>
>>>> Block 1: Journal Commit Block
>>>> Seq: 14 Type: 2 (JBD2_COMMIT_BLOCK)
>>>>
>>>> Block 2: Journal Descriptor
>>>> Seq: 15 Type: 1 (JBD2_DESCRIPTOR_BLOCK)
>>>> No. Blocknum Flags
>>>> 0. 587 none
>>>> UUID: 00000000000000000000000000000000
>>>> 1. 8257792 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID
>>>> 2. 619 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID
>>>> 3. 24772864 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID
>>>> 4. 8257802 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID
>>>> 5. 513 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID JBD2_FLAG_LAST_TAG
>>>> ...
>>>> Block 7: Inode
>>>> Inode: 8257802 Mode: 0640 Generation: 57157641 (0x3682809)
>>>> FS Generation: 2839773110 (0xa9437fb6)
>>>> CRC32: 00000000 ECC: 0000
>>>> Type: Regular Attr: 0x0 Flags: Valid
>>>> Dynamic Features: (0x1) InlineData
>>>> User: 0 (root) Group: 0 (root) Size: 7
>>>> Links: 1 Clusters: 0
>>>> ctime: 0x5de5d870 0x11104c61 -- Tue Dec 3 11:37:20.286280801 2019
>>>> atime: 0x5de5d870 0x113181a1 -- Tue Dec 3 11:37:20.288457121 2019
>>>> mtime: 0x5de5d870 0x11104c61 -- Tue Dec 3 11:37:20.286280801 2019
>>>> dtime: 0x0 -- Thu Jan 1 08:00:00 1970
>>>> ...
>>>> Block 9: Journal Commit Block
>>>> Seq: 15 Type: 2 (JBD2_COMMIT_BLOCK)
>>>>
>>>> The following is jouranl recovery log when recovering the upper jbd2
>>>> journal when mount again.
>>>> syslog:
>>>> [ 2265.648622] ocfs2: File system on device (252,1) was not unmounted cleanly, recovering it.
>>>> [ 2265.649695] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(do_one_pass, 449): Starting recovery pass 0
>>>> [ 2265.650407] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(do_one_pass, 449): Starting recovery pass 1
>>>> [ 2265.650409] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(do_one_pass, 449): Starting recovery pass 2
>>>> [ 2265.650410] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(jbd2_journal_recover, 278): JBD2: recovery, exit status 0, recovered transactions 13 to 13
>>>>
>>>> Due to first commit seq 13 recorded in journal super is not consistent
>>>> with the value recorded in block 1(seq is 14), journal recovery will be
>>>> terminated before seq 15 even though it is an unbroken commit, inode
>>>> 8257802 is a new file and it will be lost.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kai Li <li.kai4@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/ocfs2/journal.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c b/fs/ocfs2/journal.c
>>>> index 1afe57f425a0..5c7a489f47b0 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/journal.c
>>>> @@ -1066,6 +1066,15 @@ int ocfs2_journal_load(struct ocfs2_journal *journal, int local, int replayed)
>>>>
>>>> ocfs2_clear_journal_error(osb->sb, journal->j_journal, osb->slot_num);
>>>>
>>>> + if (replayed) {
>>>> + mlog(ML_NOTICE, "journal recovery complete");
>>> I don't think this log is appropriate, or we can change it to something like:
>>> "Journal is dirty, wipe it first"?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joseph
>> This log is not used to interpret journal flush's purpose and calling
>> journal flush to make jbd2 super block become normal should be a
>> requisite operation internally,
>> maybe a mark should be better I think if necessary.
>> In addition, ocfs2 prints a log like 'ocfs2: File system on device (%s)
>> was not unmounted cleanly, recovering it' before,
>> and journal has already been replayed in
>> jbd2_journal_load->jbd2_journal_recover, this log just means that it is
>> done here.
>> So I don't think it is inappropriate, could you think abort my proposal
>> again?
>>
> Not really, just think that this log has no actual meaning.
> Or we can simply remove it.
>
> Thanks,
> Joseph
>
Ok, simply remove it, any other suggestions?
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists