Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:57:54 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] Revert "f2fs: give a warning only for
 readonly partition"
Message-ID: <YGPXIhdqWHAysqeY@google.com>
References: <YFq+aQW7eihFuSst@google.com>
 <c5850f4b-ebe8-bc34-10c6-ab27d562d621@huawei.com>
 <YFvA6uzDLeD7dRdY@google.com>
 <8b0b0782-a667-9edc-5ee9-98ac9f67b7b7@huawei.com>
 <c1e48546-f61b-5db9-13b6-6430ce368661@huawei.com>
 <YF02sFKa778eomr9@google.com>
 <84688aac-75da-1226-df4d-47ac97087c51@huawei.com>
 <YF4aJYVwOVtWsAbH@google.com>
 <4b64099b-064d-43a8-461d-b54007f2c16c@huawei.com>
 <dad9c2df-02af-5df5-1dd1-9ee1fe91d229@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dad9c2df-02af-5df5-1dd1-9ee1fe91d229@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 03/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/3/27 9:52, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2021/3/27 1:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 03/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > On 2021/3/26 9:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > On 03/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > On 2021/3/25 9:59, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2021/3/25 6:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2021/3/24 12:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 03/24, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/3/24 2:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/23, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This reverts commit 938a184265d75ea474f1c6fe1da96a5196163789.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Because that commit fails generic/050 testcase which expect failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > during mount a recoverable readonly partition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we need to change generic/050, since f2fs can recover this partition,
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, not sure we can change that testcase, since it restricts all generic
> > > > > > > > > > > filesystems behavior. At least, ext4's behavior makes sense to me:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 	journal_dev_ro = bdev_read_only(journal->j_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > > 	really_read_only = bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev) | journal_dev_ro;
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 	if (journal_dev_ro && !sb_rdonly(sb)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > 		ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR,
> > > > > > > > > > > 			 "journal device read-only, try mounting with '-o ro'");
> > > > > > > > > > > 		err = -EROFS;
> > > > > > > > > > > 		goto err_out;
> > > > > > > > > > > 	}
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 	if (ext4_has_feature_journal_needs_recovery(sb)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > 		if (sb_rdonly(sb)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > 			ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "INFO: recovery "
> > > > > > > > > > > 					"required on readonly filesystem");
> > > > > > > > > > > 			if (really_read_only) {
> > > > > > > > > > > 				ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "write access "
> > > > > > > > > > > 					"unavailable, cannot proceed "
> > > > > > > > > > > 					"(try mounting with noload)");
> > > > > > > > > > > 				err = -EROFS;
> > > > > > > > > > > 				goto err_out;
> > > > > > > > > > > 			}
> > > > > > > > > > > 			ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "write access will "
> > > > > > > > > > > 			       "be enabled during recovery");
> > > > > > > > > > > 		}
> > > > > > > > > > > 	}
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > even though using it as readonly. And, valid checkpoint can allow for user to
> > > > > > > > > > > > read all the data without problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         		if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Since device is readonly now, all write to the device will fail, checkpoint can
> > > > > > > > > > > not persist recovered data, after page cache is expired, user can see stale data.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > My point is, after mount with ro, there'll be no data write which preserves the
> > > > > > > > > > current status. So, in the next time, we can recover fsync'ed data later, if
> > > > > > > > > > user succeeds to mount as rw. Another point is, with the current checkpoint, we
> > > > > > > > > > should not have any corrupted metadata. So, why not giving a chance to show what
> > > > > > > > > > data remained to user? I think this can be doable only with CoW filesystems.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I guess we're talking about the different things...
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Let me declare two different readonly status:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 1. filesystem readonly: file system is mount with ro mount option, and
> > > > > > > > > app from userspace can not modify any thing of filesystem, but filesystem
> > > > > > > > > itself can modify data on device since device may be writable.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 2. device readonly: device is set to readonly status via 'blockdev --setro'
> > > > > > > > > command, and then filesystem should never issue any write IO to the device.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > So, what I mean is, *when device is readonly*, rather than f2fs mountpoint
> > > > > > > > > is readonly (f2fs_hw_is_readonly() returns true as below code, instead of
> > > > > > > > > f2fs_readonly() returns true), in this condition, we should not issue any
> > > > > > > > > write IO to device anyway, because, AFAIK, write IO will fail due to
> > > > > > > > > bio_check_ro() check.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In that case, mount(2) will try readonly, no?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes, if device is readonly, mount (2) can not mount/remount device to rw
> > > > > > > mountpoint.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Any other concern about this patch?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Indeed we're talking about different things. :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > This case is mount(ro) with device(ro) having some data to recover.
> > > > > My point is why not giving a chance to mount(ro) to show the current data
> > > > > covered by a valid checkpoint. This doesn't change anything in the disk,
> > > > Got your idea.
> > > > 
> > > > IMO, it has potential issue in above condition:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Since device is readonly now, all write to the device will fail, checkpoint can
> > > > > > > > > > > not persist recovered data, after page cache is expired, user can see stale data.
> > > > 
> > > > e.g.
> > > > 
> > > > Recovery writes one inode and then triggers a checkpoint, all writes fail
> > > 
> > > I'm confused. Currently we don't trigger the roll-forward recovery.
> > 
> > Oh, my miss, sorry. :-P
> > 
> > My point is in this condition we can return error and try to notice user to
> > mount with disable_roll_forward or norecovery option, then at least user can
> > know he should not expect last fsynced data in newly mounted image.
> > 
> > Or we can use f2fs_recover_fsync_data() to check whether there is fsynced data,
> > if there is no such data, then let mount() succeed.
> 
> Something like this, maybe:
> 
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/super.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> index 954b1fe97d67..5e1a1caf412d 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> @@ -3966,10 +3966,19 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>  		 * previous checkpoint was not done by clean system shutdown.
>  		 */
>  		if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
> -			if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG))
> -				f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable");
> -			else
> -				f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
> +			if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) {
> +				err = f2fs_recover_fsync_data(sbi, true);

Can we do like this?

				if (err > 0) {
					err = -EROFS;
					f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but "
						"write access unavailable, please try "
						"mount w/ disable_roll_forward or norecovery");
				}
				if (err < 0)
					goto free_meta;
			}
			f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
			goto reset_checkpoint;

> +				if (!err)
> +					goto reset_checkpoint;
> +				else if (err < 0)
> +					goto free_meta;
> +				err = -EROFS;
> +				f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but "
> +					"write access unavailable, please try "
> +					"mount w/ disable_roll_forward or norecovery");
> +				goto free_meta;
> +			}
> +			f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
>  			goto reset_checkpoint;
>  		}
> 
> -- 
> 2.29.2
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > > 
> > > > due to device is readonly, once inode cache is reclaimed by vm, user will see
> > > > old inode when reloading it, or even see corrupted fs if partial meta inode's
> > > > cache is expired.
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > > and in the next time, it allows mount(rw|ro) with device(rw) to recover
> > > > > the data seamlessly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > # blockdev --setro /dev/vdb
> > > > > > > > # mount -t f2fs /dev/vdb /mnt/test/
> > > > > > > > mount: /mnt/test: WARNING: source write-protected, mounted read-only.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >       		if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
> > > > > > > > > -			if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) {
> > > > > > > > > -				err = -EROFS;
> > > > > > > > > +			if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG))
> > > > > > > > >       				f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable");
> > > > > > > > > -				goto free_meta;
> > > > > > > > > -			}
> > > > > > > > > -			f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
> > > > > > > > > +			else
> > > > > > > > > +				f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
> > > > > > > > >       			goto reset_checkpoint;
> > > > > > > > >       		}
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > For the case of filesystem is readonly and device is writable, it's fine
> > > > > > > > > to do recovery in order to let user to see fsynced data.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 938a184265d7 ("f2fs: give a warning only for readonly partition")
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         fs/f2fs/super.c | 8 +++++---
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > index b48281642e98..2b78ee11f093 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -3952,10 +3952,12 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         		 * previous checkpoint was not done by clean system shutdown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         		 */
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         		if (f2fs_hw_is_readonly(sbi)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -			if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +			if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_UMOUNT_FLAG)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +				err = -EROFS;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         				f2fs_err(sbi, "Need to recover fsync data, but write access unavailable");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -			else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -				f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +				goto free_meta;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +			}
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +			f2fs_info(sbi, "write access unavailable, skipping recovery");
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         			goto reset_checkpoint;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         		}
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.29.2
> > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > .
> > > > > 
> > > .
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > .
> >