xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 5/6] xfs: add xfs_verifier_error()

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] xfs: add xfs_verifier_error()
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:43:21 +1100
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <52F83A8D.7030506@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <52F83630.4020008@xxxxxxxxxx> <52F83A8D.7030506@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 08:33:49PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> We want to distinguish between corruption, CRC errors,
> etc.  In addition, the full stack trace on verifier errors
> seems less than helpful; it looks more like an oops than
> corruption.  
> 
> Create a new function to specifically alert the user to
> verifier errors, which can differentiate between
> EFSCORRUPTED and CRC mismatches.  It doesn't dump stack
> unless the xfs error level is turned up high.
> 
> Define a new error message (EFSBADCRC) to clearly identify
> CRC errors.  (Defined to EILSEQ, bad byte sequence)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_error.c |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  fs/xfs/xfs_error.h |    3 +++
>  fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h |    1 +
>  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> index 9995b80..08d76f4 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> @@ -178,3 +178,25 @@ xfs_corruption_error(
>       xfs_error_report(tag, level, mp, filename, linenum, ra);
>       xfs_alert(mp, "Corruption detected. Unmount and run xfs_repair");
>  }
> +
> +/*
> + * Warnings specifically for verifier errors.  Differentiate CRC vs. invalid
> + * values, and omit the stack trace unless the error level is tuned high.
> + */
> +void
> +__xfs_verifier_error(
> +     const char              *func,
> +     struct xfs_buf          *bp)
> +{
> +     struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> +
> +     xfs_alert(mp,
> +"%sCorruption detected in %s, block 0x%llx. Unmount and run xfs_repair",
> +               bp->b_error == EFSBADCRC ? "CRC " : "", func, bp->b_bn);

Perhaps if we do this:

        xfs_alert(mp,
"Metadata %s detected at %pF, block 0x%llx. Unmount and run xfs_repair",
                  bp->b_error == EFSBADCRC ? "CRC error"
                                           : "corruption", _RET_IP_, bp->b_bn);

We'll get a symbol of the form caller_name+0xoffset similar to a
stack dump. That way if we have multiple calls to a
xfs_verifier_error() inside a single function we get something that
tells us which call detected the error...

Also, the use of _RET_IP_ gets rid of the need for the wrapper
macro....

i.e. we could replace all the XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN() calls in
__xfs_dir3_data_check() with calls to xfs_verifier_error() so we can
determine exactly what corruption check failed...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>