* attr fork related fstests failures on for-next
@ 2021-03-29 18:16 Brian Foster
2021-03-29 18:31 ` Darrick J. Wong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Brian Foster @ 2021-03-29 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-xfs; +Cc: Dave Chinner, Darrick J. Wong
Hi,
I'm seeing a couple different fstests failures on current for-next that
appear to be associated with e6a688c33238 ("xfs: initialise attr fork on
inode create"). The first is xfs_check complaining about sb versionnum
bits on various tests:
generic/003 16s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
(see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/003.full for details)
# cat results/generic/003.full
...
_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
*** xfs_check output ***
sb versionnum missing attr bit 10
*** end xfs_check output
...
#
With xfs_check bypassed, repair eventually complains about some attr
forks. The first point I hit this variant is generic/117:
generic/117 9s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
(see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/117.full for details)
# cat results//generic/117.full
...
_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
*** xfs_repair -n output ***
...
Phase 3 - for each AG...
- scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists...
- process known inodes and perform inode discovery...
- agno = 0
bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 135, should be 1
would have cleared inode 135
bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 142, should be 1
would have cleared inode 142
...
Both problems disappear with e6a688c33238 reverted.
Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: attr fork related fstests failures on for-next
2021-03-29 18:16 attr fork related fstests failures on for-next Brian Foster
@ 2021-03-29 18:31 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-03-29 20:48 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2021-03-29 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Foster; +Cc: linux-xfs, Dave Chinner
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:16:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing a couple different fstests failures on current for-next that
> appear to be associated with e6a688c33238 ("xfs: initialise attr fork on
> inode create"). The first is xfs_check complaining about sb versionnum
> bits on various tests:
>
> generic/003 16s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/003.full for details)
> # cat results/generic/003.full
> ...
> _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> *** xfs_check output ***
> sb versionnum missing attr bit 10
> *** end xfs_check output
FWIW I think this because that commit sets up an attr fork without
setting ATTR and ATTR2 in sb_version like xfs_bmap_add_attrfork does...
> ...
> #
>
> With xfs_check bypassed, repair eventually complains about some attr
> forks. The first point I hit this variant is generic/117:
>
> generic/117 9s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
> (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/117.full for details)
> # cat results//generic/117.full
> ...
> _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
> *** xfs_repair -n output ***
> ...
> Phase 3 - for each AG...
> - scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists...
> - process known inodes and perform inode discovery...
> - agno = 0
> bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 135, should be 1
> would have cleared inode 135
> bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 142, should be 1
> would have cleared inode 142
...and I think this is because xfs_default_attroffset doesn't set the
correct value for device files. For those kinds of files, xfs_repair
requires the data fork to be exactly 8 bytes.
--D
> ...
>
> Both problems disappear with e6a688c33238 reverted.
>
> Brian
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: attr fork related fstests failures on for-next
2021-03-29 18:31 ` Darrick J. Wong
@ 2021-03-29 20:48 ` Dave Chinner
2021-03-29 21:06 ` Dave Chinner
2021-03-29 21:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2021-03-29 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Darrick J. Wong; +Cc: Brian Foster, linux-xfs, Dave Chinner
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:31:20AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:16:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm seeing a couple different fstests failures on current for-next that
> > appear to be associated with e6a688c33238 ("xfs: initialise attr fork on
> > inode create"). The first is xfs_check complaining about sb versionnum
> > bits on various tests:
> >
> > generic/003 16s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> > (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/003.full for details)
> > # cat results/generic/003.full
> > ...
> > _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> > *** xfs_check output ***
> > sb versionnum missing attr bit 10
> > *** end xfs_check output
>
> FWIW I think this because that commit sets up an attr fork without
> setting ATTR and ATTR2 in sb_version like xfs_bmap_add_attrfork does...
Maybe, but mkfs.xfs sets ATTR2 by default and has for a long time.
I'm not seeing this fail on either v4 or v5 filesystems on for-next
with a current xfsprogs (5.11.0), so what environment is this test
failing in?
SECTION -- xfs
FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
generic/003 11s ... 11s
Passed all 1 tests
Xunit report: /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/result.xml
SECTION -- xfs_v4
FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m crc=0 /dev/pmem1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
generic/003 11s ... 11s
Passed all 1 tests
> > With xfs_check bypassed, repair eventually complains about some attr
> > forks. The first point I hit this variant is generic/117:
> >
> > generic/117 9s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
> > (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/117.full for details)
> > # cat results//generic/117.full
> > ...
> > _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
> > *** xfs_repair -n output ***
> > ...
> > Phase 3 - for each AG...
> > - scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists...
> > - process known inodes and perform inode discovery...
> > - agno = 0
> > bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 135, should be 1
> > would have cleared inode 135
> > bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 142, should be 1
> > would have cleared inode 142
>
> ...and I think this is because xfs_default_attroffset doesn't set the
> correct value for device files. For those kinds of files, xfs_repair
> requires the data fork to be exactly 8 bytes.
Again, doesn't fail with xfsprogs 5.11.0 here for either v4 or v5
filesystems...
SECTION -- xfs
FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
generic/117 1s ... 2s
Passed all 1 tests
Xunit report: /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/result.xml
SECTION -- xfs_v4
FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m crc=0 /dev/pmem1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
generic/117 2s ... 2s
Passed all 1 tests
I'm going to need more information on what environment these
failures are being generated in.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: attr fork related fstests failures on for-next
2021-03-29 20:48 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2021-03-29 21:06 ` Dave Chinner
2021-03-29 21:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2021-03-29 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Darrick J. Wong; +Cc: Brian Foster, linux-xfs, Dave Chinner
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:48:28AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:31:20AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:16:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm seeing a couple different fstests failures on current for-next that
> > > appear to be associated with e6a688c33238 ("xfs: initialise attr fork on
> > > inode create"). The first is xfs_check complaining about sb versionnum
> > > bits on various tests:
> > >
> > > generic/003 16s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> > > (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/003.full for details)
> > > # cat results/generic/003.full
> > > ...
> > > _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> > > *** xfs_check output ***
> > > sb versionnum missing attr bit 10
> > > *** end xfs_check output
> >
> > FWIW I think this because that commit sets up an attr fork without
> > setting ATTR and ATTR2 in sb_version like xfs_bmap_add_attrfork does...
>
> Maybe, but mkfs.xfs sets ATTR2 by default and has for a long time.
> I'm not seeing this fail on either v4 or v5 filesystems on for-next
> with a current xfsprogs (5.11.0), so what environment is this test
> failing in?
>
> SECTION -- xfs
> FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
> PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
Ok, this regression test VM had selinux set to permissive so it
should have been using selinux. But at some time in the past,
"selinux=0" had been added to the kernel CLI, hence turning it off
and so not actually testing this path. I have a mix of selinux
enabled and disabled test VMs (because test matrix) and it looks
like this never made it to a VM that had selinux enabled...
Ok, I can reproduce it now, will fix.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: attr fork related fstests failures on for-next
2021-03-29 20:48 ` Dave Chinner
2021-03-29 21:06 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2021-03-29 21:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2021-03-29 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: Brian Foster, linux-xfs, Dave Chinner
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:48:28AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:31:20AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:16:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm seeing a couple different fstests failures on current for-next that
> > > appear to be associated with e6a688c33238 ("xfs: initialise attr fork on
> > > inode create"). The first is xfs_check complaining about sb versionnum
> > > bits on various tests:
> > >
> > > generic/003 16s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> > > (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/003.full for details)
> > > # cat results/generic/003.full
> > > ...
> > > _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (c)
> > > *** xfs_check output ***
> > > sb versionnum missing attr bit 10
> > > *** end xfs_check output
> >
> > FWIW I think this because that commit sets up an attr fork without
> > setting ATTR and ATTR2 in sb_version like xfs_bmap_add_attrfork does...
>
> Maybe, but mkfs.xfs sets ATTR2 by default and has for a long time.
The xfs_check regression is a result of xfs_db being too stupid to
recognize ATTR2.
> I'm not seeing this fail on either v4 or v5 filesystems on for-next
> with a current xfsprogs (5.11.0), so what environment is this test
> failing in?
I /think/ any environment where xfs_create_need_xattr returns true is
enough to reproduce it; I triggered it by making that function reproduce
unconditionally and kicking off anything that runs mknod to create a
block device inode.
--D
> SECTION -- xfs
> FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
> PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
>
> generic/003 11s ... 11s
> Passed all 1 tests
> Xunit report: /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/result.xml
>
> SECTION -- xfs_v4
> FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
> PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m crc=0 /dev/pmem1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
>
> generic/003 11s ... 11s
> Passed all 1 tests
>
> > > With xfs_check bypassed, repair eventually complains about some attr
> > > forks. The first point I hit this variant is generic/117:
> > >
> > > generic/117 9s ... _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
> > > (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/117.full for details)
> > > # cat results//generic/117.full
> > > ...
> > > _check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on /dev/mapper/test-scratch is inconsistent (r)
> > > *** xfs_repair -n output ***
> > > ...
> > > Phase 3 - for each AG...
> > > - scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists...
> > > - process known inodes and perform inode discovery...
> > > - agno = 0
> > > bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 135, should be 1
> > > would have cleared inode 135
> > > bad attr fork offset 24 in dev inode 142, should be 1
> > > would have cleared inode 142
> >
> > ...and I think this is because xfs_default_attroffset doesn't set the
> > correct value for device files. For those kinds of files, xfs_repair
> > requires the data fork to be exactly 8 bytes.
>
> Again, doesn't fail with xfsprogs 5.11.0 here for either v4 or v5
> filesystems...
>
> SECTION -- xfs
> FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
> PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1,reflink=1 -i sparse=1 /dev/pmem1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
>
> generic/117 1s ... 2s
> Passed all 1 tests
> Xunit report: /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/result.xml
>
> SECTION -- xfs_v4
> FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test3 5.12.0-rc5-dgc+ #3074 SMP
> PREEMPT Tue Mar 30 07:37:47 AEDT 2021
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m crc=0 /dev/pmem1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch
>
> generic/117 2s ... 2s
> Passed all 1 tests
>
> I'm going to need more information on what environment these
> failures are being generated in.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-03-29 21:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-03-29 18:16 attr fork related fstests failures on for-next Brian Foster
2021-03-29 18:31 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-03-29 20:48 ` Dave Chinner
2021-03-29 21:06 ` Dave Chinner
2021-03-29 21:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).