xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs_db: allow recalculating CRCs on invalid metadata

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_db: allow recalculating CRCs on invalid metadata
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:28:04 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <ee586739-e804-8174-8497-cc8a992b9752@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1463092513-5462-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ee586739-e804-8174-8497-cc8a992b9752@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:03:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/12/16 5:35 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Currently we can't write corrupt structures with valid CRCs on v5
> > filesystems via xfs_db. TO emulate certain types of corruption
> > result from software bugs in the kernel code, we need this
> > capability to set up the corrupted state. i.e. corrupt state with a
> > valid CRC needs to appear on disk.
> > 
> > This requires us to avoid running the verifier that would otherwise
> > prevent writing corrupt state to disk. To enable this, add the CRC
> > offset to the type table for different buffers and add a new flag to
> > the write command to trigger running a CRC calculation base don this
> > type table. We can then insert the calculated value into the correct
> > location in the buffer...
> > 
> > Because some objects are not directly buffer based, we can't easily
> > do this CRC trick. Those object types will be marked as
> > TYP_NO_CRC_OFF, and as a result will emit an error such as:
> 
> Using "TYP_NO_CRC_OFF" seems a little weird from a naming perspective;
> it's not really a  TYP_* is it?   Its opposite is things like
> XFS_AGI_CRC_OFF; NO_FIXED_CRC_OFF might be better to not confuse it
> with the TYP_ on-disk types?  Just a thought.

I just preficed it like that because it's something specific to the
type table. From that perspecitive, TYP_NO_CRC_RECALC might make
more sense. i.e. "this type cannot recalculate CRCs".

[...]
> >     argc -= optind;
> >     argv += optind;
> >  
> > -   if (iocur_top->bp->b_ops && corrupt) {
> > -           /* Temporarily remove write verifier to write bad data */
> > -           stashed_ops = iocur_top->bp->b_ops;
> > -           nowrite_ops.verify_read = stashed_ops->verify_read;
> > +   /* If we don't have to juggle verifiers, then just issue the write */
> 
> This is a little confusing - we know what juggling verifiers means but
> future readers may not have that fresh in mind.  ;)
> 
> /* No verifier, or standard verifier paths; just write it out and return */

Sure.

> > +   if (!iocur_top->bp->b_ops ||
> > +       !(corrupt || invalid_data)) {
> > +           (*pf)(DB_WRITE, cur_typ->fields, argc, argv);
> > +           return 0;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +
> > +   /* Temporarily remove write verifier to write bad data */
> > +   stashed_ops = iocur_top->bp->b_ops;
> > +   nowrite_ops.verify_read = stashed_ops->verify_read;
> > +   iocur_top->bp->b_ops = &nowrite_ops;
> 
> I'm regretting my name choice of "nowrite_ops" ...

I can rename it to "local_ops"...

> > +
> > +   if (corrupt) {
> >             nowrite_ops.verify_write = xfs_dummy_verify;
> > -           iocur_top->bp->b_ops = &nowrite_ops;
> > -           dbprintf(_("Allowing write of corrupted data\n"));
> > +           dbprintf(_("Allowing write of corrupted data and bad CRC\n"));
> > +   } else {
> 
> Maybe a helpful/redundant comment about /* invalid_data */ alongside } else { 
> ?

I though the dbprintf() documented it well enough? maybe move that
to the top of each branch?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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