From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DF1C3A5A2 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F87321726; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="lYf1XhbF"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="IHnTS/Pu"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="hHAqnrVs" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F87321726 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i1BoS-0003CK-Vs; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:49:16 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i1BoR-0003CC-Ar for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:49:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6Wxp5VKIB/KyLzLML73/Dr2c5sfy/Ij/SRrZhnNrjvU=; b=lYf1XhbFDDcqn+7wfMsbJHoOSW my7Ls7eCpQgbjW3bY0dlyeN0BwyxN/CP5lI4cI2ffKCU8X2jR8OztecC1E05pOrMUzg79rG6/AS/K w9XLJErDkL4WNo71Lx4I/fHBRPcMrJyY1DR4RBR0qYn1NIViG25K7TK/2j2K63sys7Mo=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6Wxp5VKIB/KyLzLML73/Dr2c5sfy/Ij/SRrZhnNrjvU=; b=IHnTS/PuxPY5hCNEFxecBcxGog kyfAMdz4SVi4GMutVtnoctinmW4Xsy6jgwNo0TPy7D1MsOY8EGiewoXQyBqbSonheK96vwxU9h3k3 +rd2VJRm7bt62HwjKou4ByiihqSOL4YspvqhFtmCT6jnxZWrOIiB3uIaDQUVFitmEowg=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1i1BoP-00Ha7p-W5 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:49:15 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.101] (unknown [180.111.132.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADB0A21726; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:49:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1566575348; bh=H+LeUoul4tM5XqbpRluU5z0iD9HCrNUgiMr7AnqOglQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=hHAqnrVsPM74tZbrWt9BfZ1fFwmGrTiE2hawzmTb1e8qN1QLdEf1/d5xsl5DwxKc3 018XWYKF+I6N75NhIX5qK+XnT8Equ1zG5kpc+qNWUWlw2HgXmeGbPWIFsfwdY+M/lo cToTysCVaH9VHntZhYOVBxZQfEr85lI7JHYSkP20= To: Jaegeuk Kim , Chao Yu References: <3bc8584e-651c-9578-c25a-40c60b5cfbdb@huawei.com> <20190822194915.GB99916@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <20190823150437.GB35310@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <9d7b76fc-c116-d7e8-1988-41b4978eaa76@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 23:48:58 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190823150437.GB35310@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Headers-End: 1i1BoP-00Ha7p-W5 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] f2fs_symlink bug X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 2019-8-23 23:04, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 08/23, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/8/23 3:49, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 08/21, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> Ping, >>>> >>>> On 2019/8/12 20:01, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> Hi Jaegeuk, >>>>> >>>>> In por_fsstress testcase, fsck reports below inconsistent status, I found one >>>>> path can cause this case. >>>>> >>>>> [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1002) --> Symlink: recover 0x1425 with i_size=4096 >>>>> [ASSERT] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1030) --> ino: 0x1425 chksum:0x6983d47, but >>>>> calculated one is: 0xdb284b35 >>>>> [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1036) --> ino: 0x1425 recover, i_inode_checksum= >>>>> 0x6983d47 -> 0xdb284b35 >>>>> >>>>> - f2fs_symlink >>>>> - page_symlink failed -> f2fs_write_failed() will truncate size to zero >>>>> - f2fs_unlink failed -> symlink inode w/o data will remain in fs >>>>> >>>>> Not sure, but one choice of fix is to treat symlink as fs meta like we did for >>>>> directory, so that checkpoint can take care of all data/node of symlink, any >>>>> thoughts? >>> >>> Hmm, how's the possible to get very long path name requiring another data block? >> >> It can with below script, which is actually existed case in fsstress. >> >> #!/bin/bash >> >> for (( i = 0; i < 4095; i++ )); do >> if [ $((i % 255)) -eq 0 ] >> then >> filename=$filename"/" >> else >> filename=$filename"0" >> fi >> done >> >> ln -s $filename /f2fs_mount_point/symlink >> >>> If it's fitted in inline_data, it's more easy to guarantee that, right? >> >> If the length of symlink is 4095, not sure inline space is enough even we can >> compress symlink... > > I meant real usecases larger than 3.5KB. There's no posix rule to guarantee > this. IOWs, it's known behavior across filesystems. Correct, it looks not a big deal that whether we truncate i_size of symlink to zero or not? how about avoiding such assert in fsck? Thanks, > >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list >>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >>>>> . >>>>> >>> . >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel