Commit 5fd364fe authored by Dave Chinner's avatar Dave Chinner Committed by Dave Chinner

xfs: quotacheck leaves dquot buffers without verifiers

When running xfs/305, I noticed that quotacheck was flushing dquot
buffers that did not have the xfs_dquot_buf_ops verifiers attached:

XFS (vdb): _xfs_buf_ioapply: no ops on block 0x1dc8/0x1dc8
ffff880052489000: 44 51 01 04 00 00 65 b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  DQ....e.........
ffff880052489010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
ffff880052489020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
ffff880052489030: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
CPU: 1 PID: 2376 Comm: mount Not tainted 3.16.0-rc2-dgc+ #306
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 ffff88006fe38000 ffff88004a0ffae8 ffffffff81cf1cca 0000000000000001
 ffff88004a0ffb88 ffffffff814d50ca 000010004a0ffc70 0000000000000000
 ffff88006be56dc4 0000000000000021 0000000000001dc8 ffff88007c773d80
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff81cf1cca>] dump_stack+0x45/0x56
 [<ffffffff814d50ca>] _xfs_buf_ioapply+0x3ca/0x3d0
 [<ffffffff810db520>] ? wake_up_state+0x20/0x20
 [<ffffffff814d51f5>] ? xfs_bdstrat_cb+0x55/0xb0
 [<ffffffff814d513b>] xfs_buf_iorequest+0x6b/0xd0
 [<ffffffff814d51f5>] xfs_bdstrat_cb+0x55/0xb0
 [<ffffffff814d53ab>] __xfs_buf_delwri_submit+0x15b/0x220
 [<ffffffff814d6040>] ? xfs_buf_delwri_submit+0x30/0x90
 [<ffffffff814d6040>] xfs_buf_delwri_submit+0x30/0x90
 [<ffffffff8150f89d>] xfs_qm_quotacheck+0x17d/0x3c0
 [<ffffffff81510591>] xfs_qm_mount_quotas+0x151/0x1e0
 [<ffffffff814ed01c>] xfs_mountfs+0x56c/0x7d0
 [<ffffffff814f0f12>] xfs_fs_fill_super+0x2c2/0x340
 [<ffffffff811c9fe4>] mount_bdev+0x194/0x1d0
 [<ffffffff814f0c50>] ? xfs_finish_flags+0x170/0x170
 [<ffffffff814ef0f5>] xfs_fs_mount+0x15/0x20
 [<ffffffff811ca8c9>] mount_fs+0x39/0x1b0
 [<ffffffff811e4d67>] vfs_kern_mount+0x67/0x120
 [<ffffffff811e757e>] do_mount+0x23e/0xad0
 [<ffffffff8117abde>] ? __get_free_pages+0xe/0x50
 [<ffffffff811e71e6>] ? copy_mount_options+0x36/0x150
 [<ffffffff811e8103>] SyS_mount+0x83/0xc0
 [<ffffffff81cfd40b>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2

This was caused by dquot buffer readahead not attaching a verifier
structure to the buffer when readahead was issued, resulting in the
followup read of the buffer finding a valid buffer and so not
attaching new verifiers to the buffer as part of the read.

Also, when a verifier failure occurs, we then read the buffer
without verifiers. Attach the verifiers manually after this read so
that if the buffer is then written it will be verified that the
corruption has been repaired.

Further, when flushing a dquot we don't ask for a verifier when
reading in the dquot buffer the dquot belongs to. Most of the time
this isn't an issue because the buffer is still cached, but when it
is not cached it will result in writing the dquot buffer without
having the verfier attached.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarBrian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
parent 67dc288c
......@@ -974,7 +974,8 @@ xfs_qm_dqflush(
* Get the buffer containing the on-disk dquot
*/
error = xfs_trans_read_buf(mp, NULL, mp->m_ddev_targp, dqp->q_blkno,
mp->m_quotainfo->qi_dqchunklen, 0, &bp, NULL);
mp->m_quotainfo->qi_dqchunklen, 0, &bp,
&xfs_dquot_buf_ops);
if (error)
goto out_unlock;
......
......@@ -1005,6 +1005,12 @@ xfs_qm_dqiter_bufs(
if (error)
break;
/*
* A corrupt buffer might not have a verifier attached, so
* make sure we have the correct one attached before writeback
* occurs.
*/
bp->b_ops = &xfs_dquot_buf_ops;
xfs_qm_reset_dqcounts(mp, bp, firstid, type);
xfs_buf_delwri_queue(bp, buffer_list);
xfs_buf_relse(bp);
......@@ -1090,7 +1096,7 @@ xfs_qm_dqiterate(
xfs_buf_readahead(mp->m_ddev_targp,
XFS_FSB_TO_DADDR(mp, rablkno),
mp->m_quotainfo->qi_dqchunklen,
NULL);
&xfs_dquot_buf_ops);
rablkno++;
}
}
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment