On 08/02, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/8/2 6:35, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 08/01, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2019/8/1 12:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> On 07/31, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>> On 2019/7/31 7:18, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>> On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>> From: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Later after this patch was merged, all new incompatible feature's > >>>>>> bit should be added into sb.required_features field, and define new > >>>>>> feature function with F2FS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE_FUNCS() macro. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then during mount, we will do sanity check with enabled features in > >>>>>> image, if there are features in sb.required_features that kernel can > >>>>>> not recognize, just fail the mount. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> v3: > >>>>>> - change commit title. > >>>>>> - fix wrong macro name. > >>>>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 10 ++++++++++ > >>>>>> include/linux/f2fs_fs.h | 3 ++- > >>>>>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>>>>> index a6eb828af57f..b8e17d4ddb8d 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>>>>> @@ -163,6 +163,15 @@ struct f2fs_mount_info { > >>>>>> #define F2FS_CLEAR_FEATURE(sbi, mask) > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> (sbi->raw_super->feature &= ~cpu_to_le32(mask)) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +#define F2FS_INCOMPAT_FEATURES 0 > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +#define F2FS_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sbi, mask) > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> + ((sbi->raw_super->required_features & cpu_to_le32(mask)) != 0) > >>>>>> +#define F2FS_SET_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sbi, mask) > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> + (sbi->raw_super->required_features |= cpu_to_le32(mask)) > >>>>>> +#define F2FS_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sbi, mask) > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> + (sbi->raw_super->required_features &= ~cpu_to_le32(mask)) > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> /* > >>>>>> * Default values for user and/or group using reserved blocks > >>>>>> */ > >>>>>> @@ -3585,6 +3594,12 @@ F2FS_FEATURE_FUNCS(lost_found, LOST_FOUND); > >>>>>> F2FS_FEATURE_FUNCS(sb_chksum, SB_CHKSUM); > >>>>>> F2FS_FEATURE_FUNCS(casefold, CASEFOLD); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +#define F2FS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE_FUNCS(name, flagname) \ > >>>>>> +static inline int f2fs_sb_has_##name(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) \ > >>>>>> +{ \ > >>>>>> + return F2FS_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sbi, F2FS_FEATURE_##flagname); > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> +} > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED > >>>>>> static inline bool f2fs_blkz_is_seq(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int > >>>>>> devi, > >>>>>> block_t blkaddr) > >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>>>>> index 5540fee0fe3f..3701dcce90e6 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>>>>> @@ -2513,6 +2513,16 @@ static int sanity_check_raw_super(struct > >>>>>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > >>>>>> return -EINVAL; > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> + /* check whether current kernel supports all features on image > >>>>>> */ > >>>>>> + if (le32_to_cpu(raw_super->required_features) & > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> #define F2FS_FEATURE_VERITY 0x0400 /* reserved */ > >>>>> ... > >>>>> #define F2FS_FEATURE_CASEFOLD 0x1000 > >>>>> #define F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT 0x1BFF > >>>>> > >>>>> if (le32_to_cpu(raw_super->required_features) & > >>>>> ~F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT) { > >>>>> ... > >>>>> return -EINVAL; > >>>>> } > >>>> > >>>> Um, I thought .required_features are used to store new feature flags > >>>> from 0x0. > >>>> > >>>> All 'F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT' bits should be stored in sb.feature instead of > >>>> sb.required_features, I'm confused... > >>> > >>> I'm thinking, > >>> > >>> f2fs-tools sb->required_features f2fs F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT > >>> v0 0 v0 no_check -> ok > >>> v1 0x1BFF v0 no_check -> ok > >>> v0 0 v1 0x1BFF -> ok > >>> v1 0x1BFF v1 0x1BFF -> ok > >>> v2 0x3BFF v1 0x1BFF -> fail > >>> v1 0x1BFF v2 0x3BFF -> ok > >>> v2 0x3BFF v2 0x3BFF -> ok > >> > >> I see, it's a bit waste for 0x1FFF low bits in sb->required_features. Why > >> not > >> leaving 0x0FFF in sb->feature w/o sanity check. And make all new > >> incompatible > >> features (including casefold) adding into sb->required_features. > > > > I don't think we can define like this, and we still have 32bits feature > > filed. > > This would give another confusion to understand. VERITY is reserved only > > now. > > > > #define F2FS_FEATURE_CASEFOLD 0x0001 > > Oops, so you want to make .required_features being almost a mirror of > .feature, > and do sanity check on it... I can see now. :P > > If so, why not just use .feature:
Sometimes, we don't need to set the flag, but not required at some point. (e.g., verify) > > kernel tool > v5.2 .. 1.12 > #define F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT 0x0BFF > > v5.3 .. 1.13 > #define F2FS_FEATURE_CASEFOLD 0x1000 > #define F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT 0x1BFF > > v5.4 .. 1.14 > #define F2FS_FEATURE_CASEFOLD 0x1000 > #define F2FS_FEATURE_COMPRESS 0x2000 > #define F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT 0x3BFF > > f2fs-tools sb->feature f2fs F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT > > [enable all features in tools] > v1.12 0x0BFF v5.2 no_check -> ok > v1.12 0x0BFF v5.3 0x1BFF -> ok > v1.12 0x0BFF v5.4 0x3BFF -> ok > > v1.13 0x1BFF v5.2 that's issue we need to fix > v1.13 0x1BFF v5.3 0x1BFF -> ok > v1.13 0x1BFF v5.4 0x3BFF -> ok > > v1.14 0x3BFF v5.2 that's issue we need to fix > v1.14 0x3BFF v5.3 0x1BFF -> fail > v1.14 0x3BFF v5.4 0x3BFF -> ok > > Or am I missing something? > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> Then that would be: > >> > >> kernel tool > >> v5.2 .. 1.12 > >> #define F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT 0x0000 > >> > >> v5.3 .. 1.13 > >> #define F2FS_FEATURE_CASEFOLD 0x0001 > >> #define F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT 0x0001 > >> > >> v5.4 .. 1.14 > >> #define F2FS_FEATURE_CASEFOLD 0x0001 > >> #define F2FS_FEATURE_COMPRESS 0x0002 > >> #define F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT 0x0003 > >> > >> f2fs-tools sb->required_features f2fs F2FS_FEATURE_SUPPORT > >> > >> v1.12 0x0000 v5.2 no_check -> ok > >> v1.12 0x0000 v5.3 0x0001 -> ok > >> v1.12 0x0000 v5.4 0x0003 -> ok > >> > >> v1.13 0x0001 v5.2 that's issue we need to > >> fix > >> v1.13 0x0001 v5.3 0x0001 -> ok > >> v1.13 0x0001 v5.4 0x0003 -> ok > >> > >> v1.14 0x0003 v5.2 that's issue we need to > >> fix > >> v1.14 0x0003 v5.3 0x0001 -> fail > >> v1.14 0x0003 v5.4 0x0003 -> ok > >> > >> And all compatible features can be added into sb->feature[_VERITY, ....]. > >> > >> Would that okay to you? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> + ~F2FS_INCOMPAT_FEATURES) { > >>>>>> + f2fs_info(sbi, "Unsupported feature: %x: supported: %x", > >>>>>> + le32_to_cpu(raw_super->required_features) ^ > >>>>>> + F2FS_INCOMPAT_FEATURES, > >>>>>> + F2FS_INCOMPAT_FEATURES); > >>>>>> + return -EINVAL; > >>>>>> + } > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> /* Check checksum_offset and crc in superblock */ > >>>>>> if (__F2FS_HAS_FEATURE(raw_super, F2FS_FEATURE_SB_CHKSUM)) { > >>>>>> crc_offset = le32_to_cpu(raw_super->checksum_offset); > >>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/f2fs_fs.h b/include/linux/f2fs_fs.h > >>>>>> index a2b36b2e286f..4141be3f219c 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/include/linux/f2fs_fs.h > >>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/f2fs_fs.h > >>>>>> @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ struct f2fs_super_block { > >>>>>> __u8 hot_ext_count; /* # of hot file extension */ > >>>>>> __le16 s_encoding; /* Filename charset encoding */ > >>>>>> __le16 s_encoding_flags; /* Filename charset encoding > >>>>>> flags */ > >>>>>> - __u8 reserved[306]; /* valid reserved region */ > >>>>>> + __le32 required_features; /* incompatible features to old > >>>>>> kernel */ > >>>>>> + __u8 reserved[302]; /* valid reserved region */ > >>>>>> __le32 crc; /* checksum of superblock */ > >>>>>> } __packed; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 2.22.0 > >>>>> . > >>>>> > >>> . > >>> > > . > >