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

[Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>]

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@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.

> 
> 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@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@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);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > 
> > .
> >