[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: linux-xfs
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: get rid of assert from xfs_btree_islastblock
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong () kernel ! org>
Date: 2022-11-30 4:17:40
Message-ID: Y4bZZP1z9aeoJYNV () magnolia
[Download RAW message or body]
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:02:37PM +0800, Guo Xuenan wrote:
> xfs_btree_check_block contains debugging knobs. With XFS_DEBUG setting up,
> turn on the debugging knob can trigger the assert of xfs_btree_islastblock,
> test script as follows:
>
> while true
> do
> mount $disk $mountpoint
> fsstress -d $testdir -l 0 -n 10000 -p 4 >/dev/null
> echo 1 > /sys/fs/xfs/sda/errortag/btree_chk_sblk
> sleep 10
> umount $mountpoint
> done
>
> Kick off fsstress and only *then* turn on the debugging knob. If it
> happens that the knob gets turned on after the cntbt lookup succeeds
> but before the call to xfs_btree_islastblock, then we *can* end up in
> the situation where a previously checked btree block suddenly starts
> returning EFSCORRUPTED from xfs_btree_check_block. Kaboom.
>
> Darrick give a very detailed explanation as follows:
> Looking back at commit 27d9ee577dcce, I think the point of all this was
> to make sure that the cursor has actually performed a lookup, and that
> the btree block at whatever level we're asking about is ok.
>
> If the caller hasn't ever done a lookup, the bc_levels array will be
> empty, so cur->bc_levels[level].bp pointer will be NULL. The call to
> xfs_btree_get_block will crash anyway, so the "ASSERT(block);" part is
> pointless.
>
> If the caller did a lookup but the lookup failed due to block
> corruption, the corresponding cur->bc_levels[level].bp pointer will also
> be NULL, and we'll still crash. The "ASSERT(xfs_btree_check_block);"
> logic is also unnecessary.
>
> If the cursor level points to an inode root, the block buffer will be
> incore, so it had better always be consistent.
>
> If the caller ignores a failed lookup after a successful one and calls
> this function, the cursor state is garbage and the assert wouldn't have
> tripped anyway. So get rid of the assert.
>
> Fixes: 27d9ee577dcc ("xfs: actually check xfs_btree_check_block return in xfs_btree_islastblock")
> Signed-off-by: Guo Xuenan <guoxuenan@huawei.com>
Seems fine to me, but what does everyone else think?
Tentatively,
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
--D
> ---
> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
> index eef27858a013..29c4b4ccb909 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.h
> @@ -556,7 +556,6 @@ xfs_btree_islastblock(
> struct xfs_buf *bp;
>
> block = xfs_btree_get_block(cur, level, &bp);
> - ASSERT(block && xfs_btree_check_block(cur, block, level, bp) == 0);
>
> if (cur->bc_flags & XFS_BTREE_LONG_PTRS)
> return block->bb_u.l.bb_rightsib == cpu_to_be64(NULLFSBLOCK);
> --
> 2.31.1
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic