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=-13.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 91605CA9EAF for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F9920663 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730314AbfJVCGM (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 22:06:12 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:10923 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730084AbfJVCGM (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 22:06:12 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,325,1566835200"; d="scan'208";a="77298030" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2019 10:06:09 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.83]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923024B6EC92; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:58:13 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.167.220.84] (10.167.220.84) by G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:06:05 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/097: Remove wrong broken assignment operation To: "Darrick J. Wong" CC: , References: <1570432515-13184-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20191007151244.GC13097@magnolia> <56deacb8-1d4a-193c-f41c-469c78d97315@cn.fujitsu.com> <20191014163904.GF26541@magnolia> <0925e033-0d0d-6eb4-8b1b-ca980ee5cd20@cn.fujitsu.com> <74874fd4-6034-d5c0-4f9d-5f0de5ef9703@cn.fujitsu.com> <20191021155039.GB6726@magnolia> <20191022015528.GD6726@magnolia> From: Yang Xu Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:06:05 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191022015528.GD6726@magnolia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.220.84] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 923024B6EC92.AD73B X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org on 2019/10/22 9:55, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:49:48AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: >> >> >> on 2019/10/21 23:50, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:09:39PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> on 2019/10/15 14:27, Yang Xu wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> on 2019/10/15 0:39, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:39:59AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> on 2019/10/07 23:12, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:15PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: >>>>>>>>> On old kernel, since commit ded188b8609 ("xfs: Fix the >>>>>>>>> situation that mount >>>>>>>>> operation rejects corrupted XFS") running this case got >>>>>>>>> the mismatched output, >>>>>>>>> as below: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But why did the output mismatch?  Did the fs heal itself?  Did >>>>>>>> allocating 5 more files somehow avoid touching the finobt?  Is the >>>>>>>> assignment logic in the loop broken? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The output mismatch because on old kernel, we can mount the >>>>>>> corrupted xfs >>>>>>> and touch action will be refused. so broken is equal to 0. >>>>>>> The fs doesn't heal ifself. >>>>>>> allocating 5 more file will touch the finobt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can see this url >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=ded188b86096e2845e59dedae6050c7f254a96b >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> eg xfs/087, they all delete "broken=0" before allocationg 5 more file. >>>>>>> commit ded188b86 compatibled old kernel(permit mount and refuse >>>>>>> touch) and >>>>>>> new kernel(refuse mount) behavior on corrupted xfs.  Or, I misunderstand >>>>>>> this case? >>>>>> >>>>>> How old is the kernel?  At some point (4.10, I think?) we added a patch >>>>>> to reserve metadata blocks for future free inode btree expansion.  That >>>>>> required us to count the blocks in the finobt, at which point xfs/097's >>>>>> behavior changed such that the fs doesn't mount after the test corrupts >>>>>> the finobt. >>>>> I test this case on kernel-3.10.0-1062.el7.x86_64. >>>>> I find the patch you said to reserve metadata blocks for future free >>>>> inode btree expansion. This kernel doesn't backport this commit 76d771b4 >>>>> ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the finobt"), so it permmits to >>>>> mount. >>>>> >>>>> I can understand your meaning. But from xfstests commit ded188b86, it >>>>> looks like refuse touch or refuse mount is acceptable for xfstests. >>>>> >>>>> Also, xfs/087 is a similar case but it sets broken=1 instead of broken >>>>> =0.  Before this kernel commit 76d771b4, xfs/087(xfs/097) permits mount >>>>> and refuse touch, after this commit, xfs/087(xfs/097) refuses mount. >>>>> I think we should keep xfs/097 consistent with xfs/087. What do you >>>>> think about it? >>>>> >>>>> ps:my patch is intend to fix the inconsistent of broken assignment >>>>> operation that xfstests commit ded188b86 introduced. >>>> Hi Darrick >>>> Do you have some questions on this patch? >>> >>> Does it still pass on upstreeam 5.4? >> >> Of course. It still can pass on upstream 5.4. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> echo "+ mount image && modify files" >> broken=1 >> //on kernel with commit d771b4 ("xfs: use per-AG reservations for the >> //finobt", it will not run into this if judgement, so broken=1. >> //on kernel without this kernel commit, it will run into this if //judgement >> and touch will be refused, so broken is still equal to 1. >> if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then >> for x in `seq 65 70`; do >> touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0 >> done >> umount "${SCRATCH_MNT}" >> fi >> -------------------------------------- > > Ah, ok. Looks good to me then. Sorry I was a little slow on the > uptake. :/ It doesn't matter. Thanks for your review. > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong > > --D > >> >>> >>> --D >>> >>>> Hi Eryu >>>> What do you think about this patch(I only want to keep xfs/097 consistent >>>> with xfs/087). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Yang Xu >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --D >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>    + check fs >>>>>>>>>    + corrupt image >>>>>>>>>    + mount image && modify files >>>>>>>>> -broken: 1 >>>>>>>>> +broken: 0 >>>>>>>>>    + repair fs >>>>>>>>>    + mount image (2) >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It fails because the broken is always equal to 0 when >>>>>>>>> _try_scratch_mount >>>>>>>>> succeed. So remove this wrong assignment operation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>    tests/xfs/097 | 2 -- >>>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/097 b/tests/xfs/097 >>>>>>>>> index 1cb7d69c..20791738 100755 >>>>>>>>> --- a/tests/xfs/097 >>>>>>>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/097 >>>>>>>>> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ done >>>>>>>>>    echo "+ mount image && modify files" >>>>>>>>>    broken=1 >>>>>>>>>    if _try_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1; then >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> -    broken=0 >>>>>>>>>        for x in `seq 65 70`; do >>>>>>>>>            touch "${TESTFILE}.${x}" 2> /dev/null && broken=0 >>>>>>>>>        done >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 2.18.1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >