| Message ID | 20220721083609.5695-1-hmsjwzb@zoho.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: Fix fstest case btrfs/219 | expand |
On 21.07.22 г. 11:36 ч., Flint.Wang wrote: > Hi, > fstest btrfs/291 failed. > > [How to reproduce] > mkdir -p /mnt/test/219.mnt > xfs_io -f -c "truncate 256m" /mnt/test/219.img1 > mkfs.btrfs /mnt/test/219.img1 > cp /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.img2 > mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.mnt > umount /mnt/test/219.mnt > losetup -f --show /mnt/test/219.img1 dev > mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/test/219.mnt > umount /mnt/test/219.mnt > mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img2 /mnt/test/219.mnt > > [Root cause] > if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > /* > * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you > * are here, that means there is more than one > * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one > * with larger generation number or the last-in if > * generation are equal. > */ > mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); > return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); > } > > [Personal opinion] > User might back up a block device to another. I think it is improper > to forbid user from mounting it. > > Signed-off-by: Flint.Wang <hmsjwzb@zoho.com> This lacks any explanation whatsoever so it's not possible to judge whether the fix is correct or not. > --- > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index 6aa6bc769569a..76af32032ac85 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path, > * tracking a problem where systems fail mount by subvolume id > * when we reject replacement on a mounted FS. > */ > - if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > + if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > /* > * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you > * are here, that means there is more than one
On 7/21/22 09:37, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 21.07.22 г. 11:36 ч., Flint.Wang wrote: >> Hi, >> fstest btrfs/291 failed. >> >> [How to reproduce] >> mkdir -p /mnt/test/219.mnt >> xfs_io -f -c "truncate 256m" /mnt/test/219.img1 >> mkfs.btrfs /mnt/test/219.img1 >> cp /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.img2 >> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.mnt >> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt >> losetup -f --show /mnt/test/219.img1 dev >> mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/test/219.mnt >> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt >> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img2 /mnt/test/219.mnt >> >> [Root cause] >> if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >> /* >> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you >> * are here, that means there is more than one >> * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one >> * with larger generation number or the last-in if >> * generation are equal. >> */ >> mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); >> return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); >> } >> >> [Personal opinion] >> User might back up a block device to another. I think it is improper >> to forbid user from mounting it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Flint.Wang <hmsjwzb@zoho.com> > > > This lacks any explanation whatsoever so it's not possible to judge whether the fix is correct or not. > >> --- >> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> index 6aa6bc769569a..76af32032ac85 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path, >> * tracking a problem where systems fail mount by subvolume id >> * when we reject replacement on a mounted FS. >> */ >> - if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >> + if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >> /* >> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you >> * are here, that means there is more than one Hi Nikolay, It seems the failure of btrfs/219 needs some explanation. Here is the thing. 1. A storage device A with btrfs filesystem is running on a host. 2. For example, we backup the device A to an exactly some device B. 3. The device A continue to run for a while so the device->generation is getting bigger. 4. Then you umount the device A and try to mount device B. 5. Kernel find that device A has the same UUID as device B and has bigger device->generation. So the mount request of device B will be rejected. if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { /* * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you * are here, that means there is more than one * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one * with larger generation number or the last-in if * generation are equal. */ mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); } I think it is improper to reject that request. Because device A is not in open state. Thanks
On 22.07.22 г. 8:34 ч., hmsjwzb wrote: > > > On 7/21/22 09:37, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 21.07.22 г. 11:36 ч., Flint.Wang wrote: >>> Hi, >>> fstest btrfs/291 failed. >>> >>> [How to reproduce] >>> mkdir -p /mnt/test/219.mnt >>> xfs_io -f -c "truncate 256m" /mnt/test/219.img1 >>> mkfs.btrfs /mnt/test/219.img1 >>> cp /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.img2 >>> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.mnt >>> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt >>> losetup -f --show /mnt/test/219.img1 dev >>> mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/test/219.mnt >>> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt >>> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img2 /mnt/test/219.mnt >>> >>> [Root cause] >>> if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >>> /* >>> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you >>> * are here, that means there is more than one >>> * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one >>> * with larger generation number or the last-in if >>> * generation are equal. >>> */ >>> mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); >>> return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); >>> } >>> >>> [Personal opinion] >>> User might back up a block device to another. I think it is improper >>> to forbid user from mounting it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Flint.Wang <hmsjwzb@zoho.com> >> >> >> This lacks any explanation whatsoever so it's not possible to judge whether the fix is correct or not. >> >>> --- >>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>> index 6aa6bc769569a..76af32032ac85 100644 >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>> @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path, >>> * tracking a problem where systems fail mount by subvolume id >>> * when we reject replacement on a mounted FS. >>> */ >>> - if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >>> + if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >>> /* >>> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you >>> * are here, that means there is more than one > > Hi Nikolay, > > It seems the failure of btrfs/219 needs some explanation. > > Here is the thing. > 1. A storage device A with btrfs filesystem is running on a host. > 2. For example, we backup the device A to an exactly some device B. > 3. The device A continue to run for a while so the device->generation is getting bigger. > 4. Then you umount the device A and try to mount device B. > 5. Kernel find that device A has the same UUID as device B and has bigger device->generation. > So the mount request of device B will be rejected. > > if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > /* > * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you > * are here, that means there is more than one > * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one > * with larger generation number or the last-in if > * generation are equal. > */ > mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); > return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); > } > > I think it is improper to reject that request. Because device A is not in open state. But then you will gravely confuse the filesystem about which device is the latest one, no? This code is rather old and the comments doesn't really help. So I'd like Chris (as the original author) to chime in on what the expected behavior should be ? IMO we shouldn't be allowing to add devices with older generation at all, irrespective of whether the fs is mounted or not. > > Thanks
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 01:34:11AM -0400, hmsjwzb wrote: > On 7/21/22 09:37, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > On 21.07.22 г. 11:36 ч., Flint.Wang wrote: > >> Hi, > >> fstest btrfs/291 failed. > >> > >> [How to reproduce] > >> mkdir -p /mnt/test/219.mnt > >> xfs_io -f -c "truncate 256m" /mnt/test/219.img1 > >> mkfs.btrfs /mnt/test/219.img1 > >> cp /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.img2 > >> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.mnt > >> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt > >> losetup -f --show /mnt/test/219.img1 dev > >> mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/test/219.mnt > >> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt > >> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img2 /mnt/test/219.mnt > >> > >> [Root cause] > >> if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > >> /* > >> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you > >> * are here, that means there is more than one > >> * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one > >> * with larger generation number or the last-in if > >> * generation are equal. > >> */ > >> mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); > >> return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); > >> } > >> > >> [Personal opinion] > >> User might back up a block device to another. I think it is improper > >> to forbid user from mounting it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Flint.Wang <hmsjwzb@zoho.com> > > > > > > This lacks any explanation whatsoever so it's not possible to judge whether the fix is correct or not. > > > >> --- > >> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > >> index 6aa6bc769569a..76af32032ac85 100644 > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > >> @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path, > >> * tracking a problem where systems fail mount by subvolume id > >> * when we reject replacement on a mounted FS. > >> */ > >> - if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > >> + if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > >> /* > >> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you > >> * are here, that means there is more than one > > Hi Nikolay, > > It seems the failure of btrfs/219 needs some explanation. > > Here is the thing. > 1. A storage device A with btrfs filesystem is running on a host. > 2. For example, we backup the device A to an exactly some device B. > 3. The device A continue to run for a while so the device->generation is getting bigger. > 4. Then you umount the device A and try to mount device B. > 5. Kernel find that device A has the same UUID as device B and has bigger device->generation. > So the mount request of device B will be rejected. That's on purpose, devices are matched by UUIDs and making block copies of the same filesystem is known "don't do that" and discouraged. If you must store the block copies then you can change the UUID by btrfstune, there are two ways (fast metadata_uuid, and slow rewriting all metadata uuids in all blocks). > > if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { > /* > * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you > * are here, that means there is more than one > * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one > * with larger generation number or the last-in if > * generation are equal. > */ > mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); > return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); > } > > I think it is improper to reject that request. Because device A is not in open state. But this would prevent mounting A. There should really be some way to distiguish the filesystems, the block device is not a stable identifier, the UUID is. Imagine having 10 copies of the same filesystem identified by the same UUID and device UUID, but with different generations and data. That's asking for problems. There's not much the filesystem driver can do than to avoid using old devices and giving preference to the highest generation device. All devices with btrfs signature are registered in memory and this is the primary source when mounting the devices, not the block device itself.
On 27/07/2022 02:38, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 01:34:11AM -0400, hmsjwzb wrote: >> On 7/21/22 09:37, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >>> On 21.07.22 г. 11:36 ч., Flint.Wang wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> fstest btrfs/291 failed. >>>> >>>> [How to reproduce] >>>> mkdir -p /mnt/test/219.mnt >>>> xfs_io -f -c "truncate 256m" /mnt/test/219.img1 >>>> mkfs.btrfs /mnt/test/219.img1 >>>> cp /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.img2 >>>> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.mnt >>>> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt >>>> losetup -f --show /mnt/test/219.img1 dev >>>> mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/test/219.mnt >>>> umount /mnt/test/219.mnt >>>> mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img2 /mnt/test/219.mnt >>>> >>>> [Root cause] >>>> if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >>>> /* >>>> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you >>>> * are here, that means there is more than one >>>> * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one >>>> * with larger generation number or the last-in if >>>> * generation are equal. >>>> */ >>>> mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); >>>> return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); >>>> } >>>> >>>> [Personal opinion] >>>> User might back up a block device to another. I think it is improper >>>> to forbid user from mounting it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Flint.Wang <hmsjwzb@zoho.com> >>> >>> >>> This lacks any explanation whatsoever so it's not possible to judge whether the fix is correct or not. >>> >>>> --- >>>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>>> index 6aa6bc769569a..76af32032ac85 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>>> @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path, >>>> * tracking a problem where systems fail mount by subvolume id >>>> * when we reject replacement on a mounted FS. >>>> */ >>>> - if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >>>> + if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >>>> /* >>>> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you >>>> * are here, that means there is more than one >> >> Hi Nikolay, >> >> It seems the failure of btrfs/219 needs some explanation. >> >> Here is the thing. >> 1. A storage device A with btrfs filesystem is running on a host. >> 2. For example, we backup the device A to an exactly some device B. >> 3. The device A continue to run for a while so the device->generation is getting bigger. >> 4. Then you umount the device A and try to mount device B. >> 5. Kernel find that device A has the same UUID as device B and has bigger device->generation. >> So the mount request of device B will be rejected. > > That's on purpose, devices are matched by UUIDs and making block copies > of the same filesystem is known "don't do that" and discouraged. > > If you must store the block copies then you can change the UUID by > btrfstune, there are two ways (fast metadata_uuid, and slow rewriting > all metadata uuids in all blocks). > >> >> if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { >> /* >> * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you >> * are here, that means there is more than one >> * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one >> * with larger generation number or the last-in if >> * generation are equal. >> */ >> mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); >> return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); >> } >> >> I think it is improper to reject that request. Because device A is not in open state. > > But this would prevent mounting A. There should really be some way to > distiguish the filesystems, the block device is not a stable identifier, > the UUID is. Imagine having 10 copies of the same filesystem identified > by the same UUID and device UUID, but with different generations and > data. That's asking for problems. > > There's not much the filesystem driver can do than to avoid using old > devices and giving preference to the highest generation device. All > devices with btrfs signature are registered in memory and this is the > primary source when mounting the devices, not the block device itself. David, The unintegrated patch [1] also used the same use case. [1] [PATCH v2][RESEND] btrfs: allow single disk devices to mount with older generations IMO device-copy and mount (without changing the UUID) can be allowed for a single device btrfs volume only. We even have a fstest case btrfs/219, which tests single device duplicate UUIDs. Please integrate [1]. -Anand
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 6aa6bc769569a..76af32032ac85 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path, * tracking a problem where systems fail mount by subvolume id * when we reject replacement on a mounted FS. */ - if (!fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { + if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { /* * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you * are here, that means there is more than one
Hi, fstest btrfs/291 failed. [How to reproduce] mkdir -p /mnt/test/219.mnt xfs_io -f -c "truncate 256m" /mnt/test/219.img1 mkfs.btrfs /mnt/test/219.img1 cp /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.img2 mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img1 /mnt/test/219.mnt umount /mnt/test/219.mnt losetup -f --show /mnt/test/219.img1 dev mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/test/219.mnt umount /mnt/test/219.mnt mount -o loop /mnt/test/219.img2 /mnt/test/219.mnt [Root cause] if (fs_devices->opened && found_transid < device->generation) { /* * That is if the FS is _not_ mounted and if you * are here, that means there is more than one * disk with same uuid and devid.We keep the one * with larger generation number or the last-in if * generation are equal. */ mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); } [Personal opinion] User might back up a block device to another. I think it is improper to forbid user from mounting it. Signed-off-by: Flint.Wang <hmsjwzb@zoho.com> --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)