Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix quota info to adjust recovered data

[Chao Yu]

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 <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> 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.

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 <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>  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);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
> 
> .
>