[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix wrong i_atime recovery

[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix wrong i_atime recovery

[Chao Yu]

From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>

Shouldn't update in-memory i_atime with on-disk i_mtime of inode when
recovering inode.

Shuoran found this bug which is hidden for a long time, honour is belong
to him.

Signed-off-by: Shuoran Liu <liushuoran@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
index 2fc84a9..d2ba4da 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
@@ -180,10 +180,10 @@ static void recover_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
 
 	inode->i_mode = le16_to_cpu(raw->i_mode);
 	f2fs_i_size_write(inode, le64_to_cpu(raw->i_size));
-	inode->i_atime.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(raw->i_mtime);
+	inode->i_atime.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(raw->i_atime);
 	inode->i_ctime.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(raw->i_ctime);
 	inode->i_mtime.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(raw->i_mtime);
-	inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(raw->i_mtime_nsec);
+	inode->i_atime.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(raw->i_atime_nsec);
 	inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(raw->i_ctime_nsec);
 	inode->i_mtime.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(raw->i_mtime_nsec);
 
-- 
2.10.1

[PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i_times

[Chao Yu]

From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>

i_times of inode will be set with current system time which can be
configured through 'date', so it's not safe to judge dnode block as
garbage data depend on i_times.

Now, we have used enhanced 'cp_ver + cp' crc method to verify valid
dnode block, so I expect recoverying invalid dnode is almost not
possible.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 31 +------------------------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
index d2ba4da..62523b2 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
@@ -196,32 +196,6 @@ static void recover_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
 			ino_of_node(page), name);
 }
 
-static bool is_same_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *ipage)
-{
-	struct f2fs_inode *ri = F2FS_INODE(ipage);
-	struct timespec disk;
-
-	if (!IS_INODE(ipage))
-		return true;
-
-	disk.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(ri->i_ctime);
-	disk.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(ri->i_ctime_nsec);
-	if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_ctime, &disk) > 0)
-		return false;
-
-	disk.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(ri->i_atime);
-	disk.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(ri->i_atime_nsec);
-	if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_atime, &disk) > 0)
-		return false;
-
-	disk.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(ri->i_mtime);
-	disk.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(ri->i_mtime_nsec);
-	if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_mtime, &disk) > 0)
-		return false;
-
-	return true;
-}
-
 static int find_fsync_dnodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct list_head *head)
 {
 	struct curseg_info *curseg;
@@ -248,10 +222,7 @@ static int find_fsync_dnodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct list_head *head)
 			goto next;
 
 		entry = get_fsync_inode(head, ino_of_node(page));
-		if (entry) {
-			if (!is_same_inode(entry->inode, page))
-				goto next;
-		} else {
+		if (!entry) {
 			if (IS_INODE(page) && is_dent_dnode(page)) {
 				err = recover_inode_page(sbi, page);
 				if (err)
-- 
2.10.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i_times

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:26:56AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> 
> i_times of inode will be set with current system time which can be
> configured through 'date', so it's not safe to judge dnode block as
> garbage data depend on i_times.

This is not to detect garbage data, but to skip redundant unchanged inode.
Anyway, in the code part, looks good to me.

Thanks,

> 
> Now, we have used enhanced 'cp_ver + cp' crc method to verify valid
> dnode block, so I expect recoverying invalid dnode is almost not
> possible.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 31 +------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> index d2ba4da..62523b2 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
> @@ -196,32 +196,6 @@ static void recover_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
>  			ino_of_node(page), name);
>  }
>  
> -static bool is_same_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *ipage)
> -{
> -	struct f2fs_inode *ri = F2FS_INODE(ipage);
> -	struct timespec disk;
> -
> -	if (!IS_INODE(ipage))
> -		return true;
> -
> -	disk.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(ri->i_ctime);
> -	disk.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(ri->i_ctime_nsec);
> -	if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_ctime, &disk) > 0)
> -		return false;
> -
> -	disk.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(ri->i_atime);
> -	disk.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(ri->i_atime_nsec);
> -	if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_atime, &disk) > 0)
> -		return false;
> -
> -	disk.tv_sec = le64_to_cpu(ri->i_mtime);
> -	disk.tv_nsec = le32_to_cpu(ri->i_mtime_nsec);
> -	if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_mtime, &disk) > 0)
> -		return false;
> -
> -	return true;
> -}
> -
>  static int find_fsync_dnodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct list_head *head)
>  {
>  	struct curseg_info *curseg;
> @@ -248,10 +222,7 @@ static int find_fsync_dnodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct list_head *head)
>  			goto next;
>  
>  		entry = get_fsync_inode(head, ino_of_node(page));
> -		if (entry) {
> -			if (!is_same_inode(entry->inode, page))
> -				goto next;
> -		} else {
> +		if (!entry) {
>  			if (IS_INODE(page) && is_dent_dnode(page)) {
>  				err = recover_inode_page(sbi, page);
>  				if (err)
> -- 
> 2.10.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i_times

[Chao Yu]

On 2016/11/4 2:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:26:56AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>
>> i_times of inode will be set with current system time which can be
>> configured through 'date', so it's not safe to judge dnode block as
>> garbage data depend on i_times.
> 
> This is not to detect garbage data, but to skip redundant unchanged inode.

Oops, seems 807b1e1c8e08 ("f2fs: do not recover from previous remained wrong
dnodes") did't describe like that. But after reading the codes, it looks like
the purpose of this change is to skip unchanged inode. So, commit log in
original is incorrect, right?

Thanks,

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i_times

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:30:09PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2016/11/4 2:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:26:56AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> i_times of inode will be set with current system time which can be
> >> configured through 'date', so it's not safe to judge dnode block as
> >> garbage data depend on i_times.
> > 
> > This is not to detect garbage data, but to skip redundant unchanged inode.
> 
> Oops, seems 807b1e1c8e08 ("f2fs: do not recover from previous remained wrong
> dnodes") did't describe like that. But after reading the codes, it looks like
> the purpose of this change is to skip unchanged inode. So, commit log in
> original is incorrect, right?

Oh, right. This indicats both of purposes: stale data and detecting same inodes.
Let me just revert the original patch.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i_times

[Chao Yu]

On 2016/11/5 6:53, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:30:09PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2016/11/4 2:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:26:56AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> i_times of inode will be set with current system time which can be
>>>> configured through 'date', so it's not safe to judge dnode block as
>>>> garbage data depend on i_times.
>>>
>>> This is not to detect garbage data, but to skip redundant unchanged inode.
>>
>> Oops, seems 807b1e1c8e08 ("f2fs: do not recover from previous remained wrong
>> dnodes") did't describe like that. But after reading the codes, it looks like
>> the purpose of this change is to skip unchanged inode. So, commit log in
>> original is incorrect, right?
> 
> Oh, right. This indicats both of purposes: stale data and detecting same inodes.

Alright.

> Let me just revert the original patch.

I can see that you have did reverting it in your git tree, but seems commit
number is not right.

Could you please merge my updated v2 patch instead?

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>> Thanks,

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: don't skip recovering inode depend on i_times

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 11:12:00AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2016/11/5 6:53, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:30:09PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2016/11/4 2:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:26:56AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> i_times of inode will be set with current system time which can be
> >>>> configured through 'date', so it's not safe to judge dnode block as
> >>>> garbage data depend on i_times.
> >>>
> >>> This is not to detect garbage data, but to skip redundant unchanged inode.
> >>
> >> Oops, seems 807b1e1c8e08 ("f2fs: do not recover from previous remained wrong
> >> dnodes") did't describe like that. But after reading the codes, it looks like
> >> the purpose of this change is to skip unchanged inode. So, commit log in
> >> original is incorrect, right?
> > 
> > Oh, right. This indicats both of purposes: stale data and detecting same inodes.
> 
> Alright.
> 
> > Let me just revert the original patch.
> 
> I can see that you have did reverting it in your git tree, but seems commit
> number is not right.
> 
> Could you please merge my updated v2 patch instead?

Oops, yeah. :)

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> >>
> >> Thanks,