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=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 75E64C433DB for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486E6619B4 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230044AbhCZBIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 21:08:48 -0400 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:13702 "EHLO szxga04-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230022AbhCZBIk (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 21:08:40 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4F63gw15hrznW8d; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:06:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.136.110.154] (10.136.110.154) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:08:34 +0800 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] Revert "f2fs: give a warning only for readonly partition" From: Chao Yu To: Jaegeuk Kim CC: , References: <20210323064155.12582-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> <107e671d-68ea-1a74-521e-ab2b6fe36416@huawei.com> <8b0b0782-a667-9edc-5ee9-98ac9f67b7b7@huawei.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:08:33 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8b0b0782-a667-9edc-5ee9-98ac9f67b7b7@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.136.110.154] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2021/3/25 9:59, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2021/3/25 6:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >> On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2021/3/24 12:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>> On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2021/3/24 2:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 03/23, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> This reverts commit 938a184265d75ea474f1c6fe1da96a5196163789. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because that commit fails generic/050 testcase which expect failure >>>>>>> during mount a recoverable readonly partition. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to change generic/050, since f2fs can recover this partition, >>>>> >>>>> Well, not sure we can change that testcase, since it restricts all generic >>>>> filesystems behavior. At least, ext4's behavior makes sense to me: >>>>> >>>>> journal_dev_ro = bdev_read_only(journal->j_dev); >>>>> really_read_only = bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev) | journal_dev_ro; >>>>> >>>>> if (journal_dev_ro && !sb_rdonly(sb)) { >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, >>>>> "journal device read-only, try mounting with '-o ro'"); >>>>> err = -EROFS; >>>>> goto err_out; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> if (ext4_has_feature_journal_needs_recovery(sb)) { >>>>> if (sb_rdonly(sb)) { >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "INFO: recovery " >>>>> "required on readonly filesystem"); >>>>> if (really_read_only) { >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "write access " >>>>> "unavailable, cannot proceed " >>>>> "(try mounting with noload)"); >>>>> err = -EROFS; >>>>> goto err_out; >>>>> } >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "write access will " >>>>> "be enabled during recovery"); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>>> even though using it as readonly. And, valid checkpoint can allow for user to >>>>>> read all the data without problem. >>>>> >>>>>>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) { >>>>> >>>>> Since device is readonly now, all write to the device will fail, checkpoint can >>>>> not persist recovered data, after page cache is expired, user can see stale data. >>>> >>>> My point is, after mount with ro, there'll be no data write which preserves the >>>> current status. So, in the next time, we can recover fsync'ed data later, if >>>> user succeeds to mount as rw. Another point is, with the current checkpoint, we >>>> should not have any corrupted metadata. So, why not giving a chance to show what >>>> data remained to user? I think this can be doable only with CoW filesystems. >>> >>> I guess we're talking about the different things... >>> >>> Let me declare two different readonly status: >>> >>> 1. filesystem readonly: file system is mount with ro mount option, and >>> app from userspace can not modify any thing of filesystem, but filesystem >>> itself can modify data on device since device may be writable. >>> >>> 2. device readonly: device is set to readonly status via 'blockdev --setro' >>> command, and then filesystem should never issue any write IO to the device. >>> >>> So, what I mean is, *when device is readonly*, rather than f2fs mountpoint >>> is readonly (f2fs_hw_is_readonly() returns true as below code, instead of >>> f2fs_readonly() returns true), in this condition, we should not issue any >>> write IO to device anyway, because, AFAIK, write IO will fail due to >>> bio_check_ro() check. >> >> In that case, mount(2) will try readonly, no? > > Yes, if device is readonly, mount (2) can not mount/remount device to rw > mountpoint. Any other concern about this patch? Thanks, > > Thanks, > >> >> # blockdev --setro /dev/vdb >> # mount -t f2fs /dev/vdb /mnt/test/ >> mount: /mnt/test: WARNING: source write-protected, mounted read-only. >> >>> >>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) { >>> - if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) { >>> - err = -EROFS; >>> + if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) >>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable"); >>> - goto free_meta; >>> - } >>> - f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>> + else >>> + f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>> goto reset_checkpoint; >>> } >>> >>> For the case of filesystem is readonly and device is writable, it's fine >>> to do recovery in order to let user to see fsynced data. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am I missing something? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 938a184265d7 ("f2fs: give a warning only for readonly partition") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 8 +++++--- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>>>>> index b48281642e98..2b78ee11f093 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>>>>> @@ -3952,10 +3952,12 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) >>>>>>> * previous checkpoint was not done by clean system shutdown. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) { >>>>>>> - if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) >>>>>>> + if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) { >>>>>>> + err = -EROFS; >>>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable"); >>>>>>> - else >>>>>>> - f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>>>>>> + goto free_meta; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>>>>>> goto reset_checkpoint; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 2.29.2 >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>> . >>>> >> . >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel > . > 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=-15.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,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 DA103C433DB for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:09:02 +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 96B9060201; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:09:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 96B9060201 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com 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-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1lPayC-0004Fn-LX; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:09:00 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1lPayB-0004Fg-BS for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:08:59 +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:References:CC:To:From: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=jceBADgu1qEahnZRNeEYmP6szVos14PQycoDOWeB4Do=; b=RIhCPRSeGBcmIGTPe+MS//jt/T OFI/NNYWlIoR2qpV8xJFHNFGRjTHVklqyOVOQj64jL0AwqHFMX59T51A0ot1WDCAxZnGbMQKq5tG+ Jk/6AcNg+c/4F0JLchgQ2eP7WoBp3RgQqrP+SkS5CeBgWj8UR/PgY+Nwri7YBn79KCd0=; 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:References:CC:To:From: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=jceBADgu1qEahnZRNeEYmP6szVos14PQycoDOWeB4Do=; b=BqpHFZEJuFwl7eUniUFncYLO4a G2IDjtfNUNfW7ql74D5TvJYKqWRNdA6oW5MySFlAUP4QyyZmAeOFZhNsw4uqz8JQ0dp92erk6/d4H WTh99+ba0P7VStIpnAgRAosvpbruBRE6G6d/9Rh8EFpYiphpL7sEXutZFUzLoA3crPa8=; Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1lPay0-00Byzn-1P for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:08:59 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4F63gw15hrznW8d; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:06:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.136.110.154] (10.136.110.154) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:08:34 +0800 From: Chao Yu To: Jaegeuk Kim References: <20210323064155.12582-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> <107e671d-68ea-1a74-521e-ab2b6fe36416@huawei.com> <8b0b0782-a667-9edc-5ee9-98ac9f67b7b7@huawei.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:08:33 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8b0b0782-a667-9edc-5ee9-98ac9f67b7b7@huawei.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.136.110.154] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1lPay0-00Byzn-1P Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] Revert "f2fs: give a warning only for readonly partition" 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-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 2021/3/25 9:59, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2021/3/25 6:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >> On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2021/3/24 12:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>> On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2021/3/24 2:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 03/23, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> This reverts commit 938a184265d75ea474f1c6fe1da96a5196163789. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because that commit fails generic/050 testcase which expect failure >>>>>>> during mount a recoverable readonly partition. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to change generic/050, since f2fs can recover this partition, >>>>> >>>>> Well, not sure we can change that testcase, since it restricts all generic >>>>> filesystems behavior. At least, ext4's behavior makes sense to me: >>>>> >>>>> journal_dev_ro = bdev_read_only(journal->j_dev); >>>>> really_read_only = bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev) | journal_dev_ro; >>>>> >>>>> if (journal_dev_ro && !sb_rdonly(sb)) { >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, >>>>> "journal device read-only, try mounting with '-o ro'"); >>>>> err = -EROFS; >>>>> goto err_out; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> if (ext4_has_feature_journal_needs_recovery(sb)) { >>>>> if (sb_rdonly(sb)) { >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "INFO: recovery " >>>>> "required on readonly filesystem"); >>>>> if (really_read_only) { >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "write access " >>>>> "unavailable, cannot proceed " >>>>> "(try mounting with noload)"); >>>>> err = -EROFS; >>>>> goto err_out; >>>>> } >>>>> ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "write access will " >>>>> "be enabled during recovery"); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>>> even though using it as readonly. And, valid checkpoint can allow for user to >>>>>> read all the data without problem. >>>>> >>>>>>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) { >>>>> >>>>> Since device is readonly now, all write to the device will fail, checkpoint can >>>>> not persist recovered data, after page cache is expired, user can see stale data. >>>> >>>> My point is, after mount with ro, there'll be no data write which preserves the >>>> current status. So, in the next time, we can recover fsync'ed data later, if >>>> user succeeds to mount as rw. Another point is, with the current checkpoint, we >>>> should not have any corrupted metadata. So, why not giving a chance to show what >>>> data remained to user? I think this can be doable only with CoW filesystems. >>> >>> I guess we're talking about the different things... >>> >>> Let me declare two different readonly status: >>> >>> 1. filesystem readonly: file system is mount with ro mount option, and >>> app from userspace can not modify any thing of filesystem, but filesystem >>> itself can modify data on device since device may be writable. >>> >>> 2. device readonly: device is set to readonly status via 'blockdev --setro' >>> command, and then filesystem should never issue any write IO to the device. >>> >>> So, what I mean is, *when device is readonly*, rather than f2fs mountpoint >>> is readonly (f2fs_hw_is_readonly() returns true as below code, instead of >>> f2fs_readonly() returns true), in this condition, we should not issue any >>> write IO to device anyway, because, AFAIK, write IO will fail due to >>> bio_check_ro() check. >> >> In that case, mount(2) will try readonly, no? > > Yes, if device is readonly, mount (2) can not mount/remount device to rw > mountpoint. Any other concern about this patch? Thanks, > > Thanks, > >> >> # blockdev --setro /dev/vdb >> # mount -t f2fs /dev/vdb /mnt/test/ >> mount: /mnt/test: WARNING: source write-protected, mounted read-only. >> >>> >>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) { >>> - if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) { >>> - err = -EROFS; >>> + if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) >>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable"); >>> - goto free_meta; >>> - } >>> - f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>> + else >>> + f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>> goto reset_checkpoint; >>> } >>> >>> For the case of filesystem is readonly and device is writable, it's fine >>> to do recovery in order to let user to see fsynced data. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am I missing something? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 938a184265d7 ("f2fs: give a warning only for readonly partition") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 8 +++++--- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>>>>> index b48281642e98..2b78ee11f093 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>>>>> @@ -3952,10 +3952,12 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) >>>>>>> * previous checkpoint was not done by clean system shutdown. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) { >>>>>>> - if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) >>>>>>> + if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) { >>>>>>> + err = -EROFS; >>>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable"); >>>>>>> - else >>>>>>> - f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>>>>>> + goto free_meta; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery"); >>>>>>> goto reset_checkpoint; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 2.29.2 >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>> . >>>> >> . >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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