On 09/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/9/26 8:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > 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 <jaeg...@kernel.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?
>
> Could you check below one?
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/988210/
It'd be worth to show the flag in print_cp_state.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > 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 <yuch...@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.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);
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >
> > .
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
