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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 09/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/9/26 9:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > 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 <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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> 
> That patch has already added that?
> 
> diff --git a/fsck/mount.c b/fsck/mount.c
> index 6a3382dbd449..21a39a7222c6 100644
> --- a/fsck/mount.c
> +++ b/fsck/mount.c
> @@ -405,6 +405,8 @@  void print_ckpt_info(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>  void print_cp_state(u32 flag)
>  {
>  	MSG(0, "Info: checkpoint state = %x : ", flag);
> +	if (flag & CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG)
> +		MSG(0, "%s", " quota_need_fsck");

Oh, yeah. :P
I started to run all my tests with this. Let me see what will happen.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> 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 <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);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > 
> > .
> >