Alex Lyakas
2012-Jul-18 17:45 UTC
btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
Hi Alexander,
I am testing different scenarios in order to better understand the
non-trivial magic of
get_cur_path()/will_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_first_ref().
I hit the following issue, when testing full-send:
This is my source subvolume (inode numbers are written):
tree -A --inodes --noreport /mnt/src/tmp/
/mnt/src/tmp/
└── [ 270] dir2
└── [ 268] file1_nod
As you see, the ino(file1_nod) < ino(dir2). It is very easy to
achieve: first create the file, then the dir, and then move the file
to dir.
During send the following happens (I augmented the send code with many prints):
file1_nod is sent first. Since its a new inode, it is sent as an
orphan. When recording its reference, __record_new_ref() calls
get_cur_path() for its parent (270). Then __get_cur_name_and_parent()
is called on 270, which calls is_inode_existent(), which calls
get_cur_inode_state(), and the state of the parent is "will_create".
So __get_cur_name_and_parent() creates an orphan name for it, and
finally the new reference for 268 is recorded as:
o270-136-0/file1_nod:
[changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
[changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
[changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
[send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(268,135) type=0100000, path=[o268-135-0]
[changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_REF 270) : NEW
[get_cur_inode_state:1475] (270,136): L(EX,136)
R(NE,18446744072099047770) sp=268 ==> will_create
[is_inode_existent:1498] (270,136): NOT existent
[__get_cur_name_and_parent:1918] ino(270,136) not existent => unique
name [o270-136-0]
[get_cur_path:2051] ino(0,0) cur_path=[o270-136-0]
[__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [o270-136-0/file1_nod]
Then process_recorded_refs() sees that 268 is still orphan, so it
sends "rename" to its valid place, but the problem is that its parent
dir was not sent yet (and its parent dir is also an orphan):
[process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(268,135): start with refs
[28118.347602] [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(268,135): new=1,
did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o268-135-0]
[28118.347605] [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(268,135): is orphan,
move it: [o268-135-0]=>[o270-136-0/file1_nod]
[28118.347610] [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(270,136)
[28118.347612] [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(268,135) done with refs
Now the parent dir is processed:
[changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
[send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(270,136) type=040000, path=[o270-136-0]
[changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
[get_cur_path:2051] ino(256,133) cur_path=[]
[__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [dir2]
[process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(270,136): start with refs
[process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(270,136): new=1,
did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o270-136-0]
[process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(270,136): is orphan, move it:
[o270-136-0]=>[dir2]
[process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(256,133)
[get_cur_inode_state:1475] (256,133): L(EX,133)
R(NE,18446612135413283512) sp=270 ==> did_create
[process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(270,136) done with refs
Nothing special here, the parent is first sent as an orphan, and then
renamed to its valid name, but it''s too late.
During receive:
ERROR: rename o268-135-0 -> o270-136-0/file1_nod failed. No such file
or directory
I am not yet sure where is the proper place to fix this, I just wanted
to report it first. Basically, I think that when sending any kind of
A_PATH, it is needed to ensure that path components exist, either as
orphan or real path (by sending them out-of-order if needed?). But I
am not yet sure where is the core place that should ensure this.
Thanks,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alexander Block
2012-Jul-24 20:26 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Alex Lyakas <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Alexander, > I am testing different scenarios in order to better understand the > non-trivial magic of > get_cur_path()/will_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_first_ref(). > I hit the following issue, when testing full-send: > > This is my source subvolume (inode numbers are written): > tree -A --inodes --noreport /mnt/src/tmp/ > /mnt/src/tmp/ > └── [ 270] dir2 > └── [ 268] file1_nod > > As you see, the ino(file1_nod) < ino(dir2). It is very easy to > achieve: first create the file, then the dir, and then move the file > to dir. > > During send the following happens (I augmented the send code with many prints): > > file1_nod is sent first. Since its a new inode, it is sent as an > orphan. When recording its reference, __record_new_ref() calls > get_cur_path() for its parent (270). Then __get_cur_name_and_parent() > is called on 270, which calls is_inode_existent(), which calls > get_cur_inode_state(), and the state of the parent is "will_create". > So __get_cur_name_and_parent() creates an orphan name for it, and > finally the new reference for 268 is recorded as: > o270-136-0/file1_nod: > > [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW > [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_REF 256) : NEW > [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW > [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(268,135) type=0100000, path=[o268-135-0] > [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_REF 270) : NEW > [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (270,136): L(EX,136) > R(NE,18446744072099047770) sp=268 ==> will_create > [is_inode_existent:1498] (270,136): NOT existent > [__get_cur_name_and_parent:1918] ino(270,136) not existent => unique > name [o270-136-0] > [get_cur_path:2051] ino(0,0) cur_path=[o270-136-0] > [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [o270-136-0/file1_nod] > > Then process_recorded_refs() sees that 268 is still orphan, so it > sends "rename" to its valid place, but the problem is that its parent > dir was not sent yet (and its parent dir is also an orphan): > [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(268,135): start with refs > [28118.347602] [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(268,135): new=1, > did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o268-135-0] > [28118.347605] [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(268,135): is orphan, > move it: [o268-135-0]=>[o270-136-0/file1_nod] > [28118.347610] [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(270,136) > [28118.347612] [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(268,135) done with refs > > Now the parent dir is processed: > [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW > [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(270,136) type=040000, path=[o270-136-0] > [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_REF 256) : NEW > [get_cur_path:2051] ino(256,133) cur_path=[] > [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [dir2] > [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(270,136): start with refs > [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(270,136): new=1, > did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o270-136-0] > [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(270,136): is orphan, move it: > [o270-136-0]=>[dir2] > [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(256,133) > [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (256,133): L(EX,133) > R(NE,18446612135413283512) sp=270 ==> did_create > [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(270,136) done with refs > > Nothing special here, the parent is first sent as an orphan, and then > renamed to its valid name, but it''s too late. > > During receive: > ERROR: rename o268-135-0 -> o270-136-0/file1_nod failed. No such file > or directory > > I am not yet sure where is the proper place to fix this, I just wanted > to report it first. Basically, I think that when sending any kind of > A_PATH, it is needed to ensure that path components exist, either as > orphan or real path (by sending them out-of-order if needed?). But I > am not yet sure where is the core place that should ensure this. > > Thanks, > Alex.I have pushed a fix for this case. Basically, the solution is to postpone the processing of refs in not created dirs until the dir is created. Big thanks for investigating this one. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2012-Jul-26 10:52 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
Hi Alexander,
I did some very initial testing, and there is still an issue.
The logic of finish_outoforder_dir works as expected. But then problem
is that later, when we process xattr/extents or finish the inode, the
code still uses get_cur_path(), which brings an incorrect name.
Consider the following simple scenario:
Parent tree:
/mnt/src/v2
└── [ 260] file1
Send tree:
/mnt/src/v2
└── [ 262] dir1
└── [ 260] file1
So when file1 is being processed, it is first renamed, as expected:
C_RENAME: A_PATH=file1, A_PATH_TO=o260-511-0
But then, when we finish it, we do:
C_TRUNCATE: A_PATH=o262-517-0/file1, A_SIZE=16
So in some functions like send_truncate(), send_write(), send_utimes()
etc, we need:
- ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/);
+ if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan)
+ ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p);
+ else
+ ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/);
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
I will continue testing more complicated cases now.
Thanks,
Alex.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Alexander Block
<ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote:> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Alex Lyakas
> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Alexander,
>> I am testing different scenarios in order to better understand the
>> non-trivial magic of
>>
get_cur_path()/will_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_first_ref().
>> I hit the following issue, when testing full-send:
>>
>> This is my source subvolume (inode numbers are written):
>> tree -A --inodes --noreport /mnt/src/tmp/
>> /mnt/src/tmp/
>> └── [ 270] dir2
>> └── [ 268] file1_nod
>>
>> As you see, the ino(file1_nod) < ino(dir2). It is very easy to
>> achieve: first create the file, then the dir, and then move the file
>> to dir.
>>
>> During send the following happens (I augmented the send code with many
prints):
>>
>> file1_nod is sent first. Since its a new inode, it is sent as an
>> orphan. When recording its reference, __record_new_ref() calls
>> get_cur_path() for its parent (270). Then __get_cur_name_and_parent()
>> is called on 270, which calls is_inode_existent(), which calls
>> get_cur_inode_state(), and the state of the parent is
"will_create".
>> So __get_cur_name_and_parent() creates an orphan name for it, and
>> finally the new reference for 268 is recorded as:
>> o270-136-0/file1_nod:
>>
>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(268,135) type=0100000,
path=[o268-135-0]
>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_REF 270) : NEW
>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (270,136): L(EX,136)
>> R(NE,18446744072099047770) sp=268 ==> will_create
>> [is_inode_existent:1498] (270,136): NOT existent
>> [__get_cur_name_and_parent:1918] ino(270,136) not existent => unique
>> name [o270-136-0]
>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(0,0) cur_path=[o270-136-0]
>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [o270-136-0/file1_nod]
>>
>> Then process_recorded_refs() sees that 268 is still orphan, so it
>> sends "rename" to its valid place, but the problem is that
its parent
>> dir was not sent yet (and its parent dir is also an orphan):
>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(268,135): start with refs
>> [28118.347602] [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(268,135): new=1,
>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o268-135-0]
>> [28118.347605] [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(268,135): is orphan,
>> move it: [o268-135-0]=>[o270-136-0/file1_nod]
>> [28118.347610] [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(270,136)
>> [28118.347612] [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(268,135) done with refs
>>
>> Now the parent dir is processed:
>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(270,136) type=040000,
path=[o270-136-0]
>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(256,133) cur_path=[]
>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [dir2]
>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(270,136): start with refs
>> [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(270,136): new=1,
>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o270-136-0]
>> [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(270,136): is orphan, move it:
>> [o270-136-0]=>[dir2]
>> [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(256,133)
>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (256,133): L(EX,133)
>> R(NE,18446612135413283512) sp=270 ==> did_create
>> [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(270,136) done with refs
>>
>> Nothing special here, the parent is first sent as an orphan, and then
>> renamed to its valid name, but it''s too late.
>>
>> During receive:
>> ERROR: rename o268-135-0 -> o270-136-0/file1_nod failed. No such
file
>> or directory
>>
>> I am not yet sure where is the proper place to fix this, I just wanted
>> to report it first. Basically, I think that when sending any kind of
>> A_PATH, it is needed to ensure that path components exist, either as
>> orphan or real path (by sending them out-of-order if needed?). But I
>> am not yet sure where is the core place that should ensure this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex.
>
> I have pushed a fix for this case. Basically, the solution is to
> postpone the processing of refs in not created dirs until the dir is
> created. Big thanks for investigating this one.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2012-Jul-26 14:04 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
Alexander,
(pls let me know when this gets annoying:).
Parent:
/mnt/src/v2_snap0/
└── [ 257] file1
Send:
/mnt/src/v2_snap1
└── [ 259] dir1
└── [ 258] dir2
└── [ 257] file1
I encountered two problems:
1) process_recorded_refs_if_needed() if needed does not call
process_recorded_refs() if both new_refs and deleted_refs() are empty.
But in this case, we need to get to finish_outoforder_dir() by dir2 to
move file1 under it (this is before dir1 is created).
@@ -4199,8 +4227,25 @@ static int
process_recorded_refs_if_needed(struct send_ctx *sctx, int at_end)
if (!at_end && sctx->cur_ino == sctx->cmp_key->objectid
&&
sctx->cmp_key->type <= BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY)
goto out;
- if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) &&
list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs))
- goto out;
+ if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) &&
list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs) &&
+ /*
+ * If this is a new directory, still do the
finish_outoforder_dir() thing,
+ * even though it has no references recorded. This
means that the directory''s
+ * parent has higher inode and was not created yet
(thus we should have
+ * sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag set).
+ * Note that after a call to process_recorded_refs(),
new_refs and deleted_refs
+ * become empty, which prevents further calls to
process_recorded_refs(),
+ * but here we need something else to prevent it, so
look at send_progress too.
+ */
+ !(S_ISDIR(sctx->cur_inode_mode) &&
sctx->cur_inode_new &&
+ sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan &&
sctx->send_progress == sctx->cur_ino))
+ goto out;
ret = process_recorded_refs(sctx);
Then I encountered another problem that finish_outoforder_dir() does
not check for itself the cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag:
@@ -2736,7 +2754,17 @@ static int finish_outoforder_dir(struct
send_ctx *sctx, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen)
}
fctx.dir_ino = dir;
- ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path, 1/*do_print*/);
+ /*
+ * If the current directory itself has a parent, which was not
+ * created yet, we need to use gen_unique_name().
+ */
+ BUG_ON(sctx->cur_ino != dir || sctx->cur_inode_gen != dir_gen);
+ if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan)
+ ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path);
+ else
+ ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path);
Finally, the send_truncate(), send_chmod(), send_chown(),send_utimes()
need the following check:
if (sctx->cur_ino == ino && sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) {
WARN_ON(sctx->cur_inode_gen != gen);
ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p);
} else {
ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p);
}
All of them except utimes() are used with cur_ino only, so for those
this check is redundant (and probably makes sense to drop ino/gen
parameters of them?).
Thanks,
Alex.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Alex Lyakas
<alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Alexander,
> I did some very initial testing, and there is still an issue.
> The logic of finish_outoforder_dir works as expected. But then problem
> is that later, when we process xattr/extents or finish the inode, the
> code still uses get_cur_path(), which brings an incorrect name.
>
> Consider the following simple scenario:
>
> Parent tree:
> /mnt/src/v2
> └── [ 260] file1
>
> Send tree:
> /mnt/src/v2
> └── [ 262] dir1
> └── [ 260] file1
>
> So when file1 is being processed, it is first renamed, as expected:
> C_RENAME: A_PATH=file1, A_PATH_TO=o260-511-0
> But then, when we finish it, we do:
> C_TRUNCATE: A_PATH=o262-517-0/file1, A_SIZE=16
>
> So in some functions like send_truncate(), send_write(), send_utimes()
> etc, we need:
>
> - ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/);
> + if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan)
> + ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p);
> + else
> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto out;
>
> I will continue testing more complicated cases now.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Alexander Block
> <ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Alex Lyakas
>> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Alexander,
>>> I am testing different scenarios in order to better understand the
>>> non-trivial magic of
>>>
get_cur_path()/will_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_first_ref().
>>> I hit the following issue, when testing full-send:
>>>
>>> This is my source subvolume (inode numbers are written):
>>> tree -A --inodes --noreport /mnt/src/tmp/
>>> /mnt/src/tmp/
>>> └── [ 270] dir2
>>> └── [ 268] file1_nod
>>>
>>> As you see, the ino(file1_nod) < ino(dir2). It is very easy to
>>> achieve: first create the file, then the dir, and then move the
file
>>> to dir.
>>>
>>> During send the following happens (I augmented the send code with
many prints):
>>>
>>> file1_nod is sent first. Since its a new inode, it is sent as an
>>> orphan. When recording its reference, __record_new_ref() calls
>>> get_cur_path() for its parent (270). Then
__get_cur_name_and_parent()
>>> is called on 270, which calls is_inode_existent(), which calls
>>> get_cur_inode_state(), and the state of the parent is
"will_create".
>>> So __get_cur_name_and_parent() creates an orphan name for it, and
>>> finally the new reference for 268 is recorded as:
>>> o270-136-0/file1_nod:
>>>
>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(268,135) type=0100000,
path=[o268-135-0]
>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_REF 270) : NEW
>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (270,136): L(EX,136)
>>> R(NE,18446744072099047770) sp=268 ==> will_create
>>> [is_inode_existent:1498] (270,136): NOT existent
>>> [__get_cur_name_and_parent:1918] ino(270,136) not existent =>
unique
>>> name [o270-136-0]
>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(0,0) cur_path=[o270-136-0]
>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [o270-136-0/file1_nod]
>>>
>>> Then process_recorded_refs() sees that 268 is still orphan, so it
>>> sends "rename" to its valid place, but the problem is
that its parent
>>> dir was not sent yet (and its parent dir is also an orphan):
>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(268,135): start with refs
>>> [28118.347602] [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(268,135): new=1,
>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o268-135-0]
>>> [28118.347605] [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(268,135): is
orphan,
>>> move it: [o268-135-0]=>[o270-136-0/file1_nod]
>>> [28118.347610] [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(270,136)
>>> [28118.347612] [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(268,135) done with
refs
>>>
>>> Now the parent dir is processed:
>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(270,136) type=040000,
path=[o270-136-0]
>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(256,133) cur_path=[]
>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [dir2]
>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(270,136): start with refs
>>> [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(270,136): new=1,
>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o270-136-0]
>>> [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(270,136): is orphan, move it:
>>> [o270-136-0]=>[dir2]
>>> [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(256,133)
>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (256,133): L(EX,133)
>>> R(NE,18446612135413283512) sp=270 ==> did_create
>>> [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(270,136) done with refs
>>>
>>> Nothing special here, the parent is first sent as an orphan, and
then
>>> renamed to its valid name, but it''s too late.
>>>
>>> During receive:
>>> ERROR: rename o268-135-0 -> o270-136-0/file1_nod failed. No such
file
>>> or directory
>>>
>>> I am not yet sure where is the proper place to fix this, I just
wanted
>>> to report it first. Basically, I think that when sending any kind
of
>>> A_PATH, it is needed to ensure that path components exist, either
as
>>> orphan or real path (by sending them out-of-order if needed?). But
I
>>> am not yet sure where is the core place that should ensure this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex.
>>
>> I have pushed a fix for this case. Basically, the solution is to
>> postpone the processing of refs in not created dirs until the dir is
>> created. Big thanks for investigating this one.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alexander Block
2012-Jul-26 14:07 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
I''m currently working on another solution for the initial problem. I will create a for-alex branch for you to test later. On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Alex Lyakas <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:> Alexander, > (pls let me know when this gets annoying:). > > Parent: > /mnt/src/v2_snap0/ > └── [ 257] file1 > > Send: > /mnt/src/v2_snap1 > └── [ 259] dir1 > └── [ 258] dir2 > └── [ 257] file1 > > I encountered two problems: > 1) process_recorded_refs_if_needed() if needed does not call > process_recorded_refs() if both new_refs and deleted_refs() are empty. > But in this case, we need to get to finish_outoforder_dir() by dir2 to > move file1 under it (this is before dir1 is created). > > @@ -4199,8 +4227,25 @@ static int > process_recorded_refs_if_needed(struct send_ctx *sctx, int at_end) > if (!at_end && sctx->cur_ino == sctx->cmp_key->objectid && > sctx->cmp_key->type <= BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY) > goto out; > - if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) && list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs)) > - goto out; > + if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) && list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs) && > + /* > + * If this is a new directory, still do the > finish_outoforder_dir() thing, > + * even though it has no references recorded. This > means that the directory''s > + * parent has higher inode and was not created yet > (thus we should have > + * sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag set). > + * Note that after a call to process_recorded_refs(), > new_refs and deleted_refs > + * become empty, which prevents further calls to > process_recorded_refs(), > + * but here we need something else to prevent it, so > look at send_progress too. > + */ > + !(S_ISDIR(sctx->cur_inode_mode) && sctx->cur_inode_new && > + sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan && > sctx->send_progress == sctx->cur_ino)) > + goto out; > > ret = process_recorded_refs(sctx); > > Then I encountered another problem that finish_outoforder_dir() does > not check for itself the cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag: > @@ -2736,7 +2754,17 @@ static int finish_outoforder_dir(struct > send_ctx *sctx, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen) > } > fctx.dir_ino = dir; > > - ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path, 1/*do_print*/); > + /* > + * If the current directory itself has a parent, which was not > + * created yet, we need to use gen_unique_name(). > + */ > + BUG_ON(sctx->cur_ino != dir || sctx->cur_inode_gen != dir_gen); > + if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) > + ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path); > + else > + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path); > > Finally, the send_truncate(), send_chmod(), send_chown(),send_utimes() > need the following check: > > if (sctx->cur_ino == ino && sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) { > WARN_ON(sctx->cur_inode_gen != gen); > ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p); > } else { > ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p); > } > > All of them except utimes() are used with cur_ino only, so for those > this check is redundant (and probably makes sense to drop ino/gen > parameters of them?). > > Thanks, > Alex. > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Alex Lyakas > <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Alexander, >> I did some very initial testing, and there is still an issue. >> The logic of finish_outoforder_dir works as expected. But then problem >> is that later, when we process xattr/extents or finish the inode, the >> code still uses get_cur_path(), which brings an incorrect name. >> >> Consider the following simple scenario: >> >> Parent tree: >> /mnt/src/v2 >> └── [ 260] file1 >> >> Send tree: >> /mnt/src/v2 >> └── [ 262] dir1 >> └── [ 260] file1 >> >> So when file1 is being processed, it is first renamed, as expected: >> C_RENAME: A_PATH=file1, A_PATH_TO=o260-511-0 >> But then, when we finish it, we do: >> C_TRUNCATE: A_PATH=o262-517-0/file1, A_SIZE=16 >> >> So in some functions like send_truncate(), send_write(), send_utimes() >> etc, we need: >> >> - ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/); >> + if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) >> + ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p); >> + else >> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/); >> if (ret < 0) >> goto out; >> >> I will continue testing more complicated cases now. >> >> Thanks, >> Alex. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Alexander Block >> <ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Alex Lyakas >>> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Alexander, >>>> I am testing different scenarios in order to better understand the >>>> non-trivial magic of >>>> get_cur_path()/will_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_first_ref(). >>>> I hit the following issue, when testing full-send: >>>> >>>> This is my source subvolume (inode numbers are written): >>>> tree -A --inodes --noreport /mnt/src/tmp/ >>>> /mnt/src/tmp/ >>>> └── [ 270] dir2 >>>> └── [ 268] file1_nod >>>> >>>> As you see, the ino(file1_nod) < ino(dir2). It is very easy to >>>> achieve: first create the file, then the dir, and then move the file >>>> to dir. >>>> >>>> During send the following happens (I augmented the send code with many prints): >>>> >>>> file1_nod is sent first. Since its a new inode, it is sent as an >>>> orphan. When recording its reference, __record_new_ref() calls >>>> get_cur_path() for its parent (270). Then __get_cur_name_and_parent() >>>> is called on 270, which calls is_inode_existent(), which calls >>>> get_cur_inode_state(), and the state of the parent is "will_create". >>>> So __get_cur_name_and_parent() creates an orphan name for it, and >>>> finally the new reference for 268 is recorded as: >>>> o270-136-0/file1_nod: >>>> >>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW >>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_REF 256) : NEW >>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW >>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(268,135) type=0100000, path=[o268-135-0] >>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_REF 270) : NEW >>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (270,136): L(EX,136) >>>> R(NE,18446744072099047770) sp=268 ==> will_create >>>> [is_inode_existent:1498] (270,136): NOT existent >>>> [__get_cur_name_and_parent:1918] ino(270,136) not existent => unique >>>> name [o270-136-0] >>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(0,0) cur_path=[o270-136-0] >>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [o270-136-0/file1_nod] >>>> >>>> Then process_recorded_refs() sees that 268 is still orphan, so it >>>> sends "rename" to its valid place, but the problem is that its parent >>>> dir was not sent yet (and its parent dir is also an orphan): >>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(268,135): start with refs >>>> [28118.347602] [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(268,135): new=1, >>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o268-135-0] >>>> [28118.347605] [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(268,135): is orphan, >>>> move it: [o268-135-0]=>[o270-136-0/file1_nod] >>>> [28118.347610] [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(270,136) >>>> [28118.347612] [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(268,135) done with refs >>>> >>>> Now the parent dir is processed: >>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW >>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(270,136) type=040000, path=[o270-136-0] >>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_REF 256) : NEW >>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(256,133) cur_path=[] >>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [dir2] >>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(270,136): start with refs >>>> [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(270,136): new=1, >>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o270-136-0] >>>> [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(270,136): is orphan, move it: >>>> [o270-136-0]=>[dir2] >>>> [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(256,133) >>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (256,133): L(EX,133) >>>> R(NE,18446612135413283512) sp=270 ==> did_create >>>> [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(270,136) done with refs >>>> >>>> Nothing special here, the parent is first sent as an orphan, and then >>>> renamed to its valid name, but it''s too late. >>>> >>>> During receive: >>>> ERROR: rename o268-135-0 -> o270-136-0/file1_nod failed. No such file >>>> or directory >>>> >>>> I am not yet sure where is the proper place to fix this, I just wanted >>>> to report it first. Basically, I think that when sending any kind of >>>> A_PATH, it is needed to ensure that path components exist, either as >>>> orphan or real path (by sending them out-of-order if needed?). But I >>>> am not yet sure where is the core place that should ensure this. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alex. >>> >>> I have pushed a fix for this case. Basically, the solution is to >>> postpone the processing of refs in not created dirs until the dir is >>> created. Big thanks for investigating this one.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alexander Block
2012-Jul-26 21:42 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
I have pushed a for-alex branch to github with a new approach for the whole problem. Can you test this? On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Block <ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote:> I''m currently working on another solution for the initial problem. I > will create a for-alex branch for you to test later. > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Alex Lyakas > <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote: >> Alexander, >> (pls let me know when this gets annoying:). >> >> Parent: >> /mnt/src/v2_snap0/ >> └── [ 257] file1 >> >> Send: >> /mnt/src/v2_snap1 >> └── [ 259] dir1 >> └── [ 258] dir2 >> └── [ 257] file1 >> >> I encountered two problems: >> 1) process_recorded_refs_if_needed() if needed does not call >> process_recorded_refs() if both new_refs and deleted_refs() are empty. >> But in this case, we need to get to finish_outoforder_dir() by dir2 to >> move file1 under it (this is before dir1 is created). >> >> @@ -4199,8 +4227,25 @@ static int >> process_recorded_refs_if_needed(struct send_ctx *sctx, int at_end) >> if (!at_end && sctx->cur_ino == sctx->cmp_key->objectid && >> sctx->cmp_key->type <= BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY) >> goto out; >> - if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) && list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs)) >> - goto out; >> + if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) && list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs) && >> + /* >> + * If this is a new directory, still do the >> finish_outoforder_dir() thing, >> + * even though it has no references recorded. This >> means that the directory''s >> + * parent has higher inode and was not created yet >> (thus we should have >> + * sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag set). >> + * Note that after a call to process_recorded_refs(), >> new_refs and deleted_refs >> + * become empty, which prevents further calls to >> process_recorded_refs(), >> + * but here we need something else to prevent it, so >> look at send_progress too. >> + */ >> + !(S_ISDIR(sctx->cur_inode_mode) && sctx->cur_inode_new && >> + sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan && >> sctx->send_progress == sctx->cur_ino)) >> + goto out; >> >> ret = process_recorded_refs(sctx); >> >> Then I encountered another problem that finish_outoforder_dir() does >> not check for itself the cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag: >> @@ -2736,7 +2754,17 @@ static int finish_outoforder_dir(struct >> send_ctx *sctx, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen) >> } >> fctx.dir_ino = dir; >> >> - ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path, 1/*do_print*/); >> + /* >> + * If the current directory itself has a parent, which was not >> + * created yet, we need to use gen_unique_name(). >> + */ >> + BUG_ON(sctx->cur_ino != dir || sctx->cur_inode_gen != dir_gen); >> + if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) >> + ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path); >> + else >> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path); >> >> Finally, the send_truncate(), send_chmod(), send_chown(),send_utimes() >> need the following check: >> >> if (sctx->cur_ino == ino && sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) { >> WARN_ON(sctx->cur_inode_gen != gen); >> ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p); >> } else { >> ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p); >> } >> >> All of them except utimes() are used with cur_ino only, so for those >> this check is redundant (and probably makes sense to drop ino/gen >> parameters of them?). >> >> Thanks, >> Alex. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Alex Lyakas >> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Alexander, >>> I did some very initial testing, and there is still an issue. >>> The logic of finish_outoforder_dir works as expected. But then problem >>> is that later, when we process xattr/extents or finish the inode, the >>> code still uses get_cur_path(), which brings an incorrect name. >>> >>> Consider the following simple scenario: >>> >>> Parent tree: >>> /mnt/src/v2 >>> └── [ 260] file1 >>> >>> Send tree: >>> /mnt/src/v2 >>> └── [ 262] dir1 >>> └── [ 260] file1 >>> >>> So when file1 is being processed, it is first renamed, as expected: >>> C_RENAME: A_PATH=file1, A_PATH_TO=o260-511-0 >>> But then, when we finish it, we do: >>> C_TRUNCATE: A_PATH=o262-517-0/file1, A_SIZE=16 >>> >>> So in some functions like send_truncate(), send_write(), send_utimes() >>> etc, we need: >>> >>> - ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/); >>> + if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) >>> + ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p); >>> + else >>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/); >>> if (ret < 0) >>> goto out; >>> >>> I will continue testing more complicated cases now. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alex. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Alexander Block >>> <ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Alex Lyakas >>>> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Alexander, >>>>> I am testing different scenarios in order to better understand the >>>>> non-trivial magic of >>>>> get_cur_path()/will_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_first_ref(). >>>>> I hit the following issue, when testing full-send: >>>>> >>>>> This is my source subvolume (inode numbers are written): >>>>> tree -A --inodes --noreport /mnt/src/tmp/ >>>>> /mnt/src/tmp/ >>>>> └── [ 270] dir2 >>>>> └── [ 268] file1_nod >>>>> >>>>> As you see, the ino(file1_nod) < ino(dir2). It is very easy to >>>>> achieve: first create the file, then the dir, and then move the file >>>>> to dir. >>>>> >>>>> During send the following happens (I augmented the send code with many prints): >>>>> >>>>> file1_nod is sent first. Since its a new inode, it is sent as an >>>>> orphan. When recording its reference, __record_new_ref() calls >>>>> get_cur_path() for its parent (270). Then __get_cur_name_and_parent() >>>>> is called on 270, which calls is_inode_existent(), which calls >>>>> get_cur_inode_state(), and the state of the parent is "will_create". >>>>> So __get_cur_name_and_parent() creates an orphan name for it, and >>>>> finally the new reference for 268 is recorded as: >>>>> o270-136-0/file1_nod: >>>>> >>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW >>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_REF 256) : NEW >>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW >>>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(268,135) type=0100000, path=[o268-135-0] >>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_REF 270) : NEW >>>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (270,136): L(EX,136) >>>>> R(NE,18446744072099047770) sp=268 ==> will_create >>>>> [is_inode_existent:1498] (270,136): NOT existent >>>>> [__get_cur_name_and_parent:1918] ino(270,136) not existent => unique >>>>> name [o270-136-0] >>>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(0,0) cur_path=[o270-136-0] >>>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [o270-136-0/file1_nod] >>>>> >>>>> Then process_recorded_refs() sees that 268 is still orphan, so it >>>>> sends "rename" to its valid place, but the problem is that its parent >>>>> dir was not sent yet (and its parent dir is also an orphan): >>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(268,135): start with refs >>>>> [28118.347602] [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(268,135): new=1, >>>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o268-135-0] >>>>> [28118.347605] [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(268,135): is orphan, >>>>> move it: [o268-135-0]=>[o270-136-0/file1_nod] >>>>> [28118.347610] [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(270,136) >>>>> [28118.347612] [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(268,135) done with refs >>>>> >>>>> Now the parent dir is processed: >>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW >>>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(270,136) type=040000, path=[o270-136-0] >>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_REF 256) : NEW >>>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(256,133) cur_path=[] >>>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [dir2] >>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(270,136): start with refs >>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(270,136): new=1, >>>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1, valid_path=[o270-136-0] >>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(270,136): is orphan, move it: >>>>> [o270-136-0]=>[dir2] >>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(256,133) >>>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (256,133): L(EX,133) >>>>> R(NE,18446612135413283512) sp=270 ==> did_create >>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(270,136) done with refs >>>>> >>>>> Nothing special here, the parent is first sent as an orphan, and then >>>>> renamed to its valid name, but it''s too late. >>>>> >>>>> During receive: >>>>> ERROR: rename o268-135-0 -> o270-136-0/file1_nod failed. No such file >>>>> or directory >>>>> >>>>> I am not yet sure where is the proper place to fix this, I just wanted >>>>> to report it first. Basically, I think that when sending any kind of >>>>> A_PATH, it is needed to ensure that path components exist, either as >>>>> orphan or real path (by sending them out-of-order if needed?). But I >>>>> am not yet sure where is the core place that should ensure this. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Alex. >>>> >>>> I have pushed a fix for this case. Basically, the solution is to >>>> postpone the processing of refs in not created dirs until the dir is >>>> created. Big thanks for investigating this one.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2012-Jul-27 14:37 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
Hi Alexander,
your solution is simple and elegant. I this this issue is solved now. Thanks!
Two minor issues:
1)
/*
* We need some special handling for inodes that get processed before the parent
* directory got created. See process_all_refs for details.
* This function does the check if we already created the dir out of order.
*/
/*
* Only creates the inode if it is:
* 1. Not a directory
* 2. Or a directory which was not created already due to out of order
* directories. See did_create_dir and process_all_refs for details.
*/
These comments tell to look at process_all_refs(), while we should
look at process_recorded_refs().
2)
* We can however not delete the orphan in case the inode relies
* in a directory that was not created yet (see
* __record_new_ref)
*/
This part should be removed, because your new solution does not work this way.
If you find, time, pls look at the two attached scripts.
btrfs_test_1.sh:
it tries to explore the is_first_ref() issue and founds a problem.
Proposed patch - compare also the (dir,gen) tuple and only the name:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
index 68e504c..b83ec5f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -1597,7 +1597,7 @@ out:
static int is_first_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx,
struct btrfs_root *root,
- u64 ino, u64 dir,
+ u64 ino, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen,
const char *name, int name_len)
{
int ret;
@@ -1613,6 +1613,11 @@ static int is_first_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx,
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
+ if (dir != tmp_dir || dir_gen != tmp_dir_gen) {
+ ret = 0;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (name_len != fs_path_len(tmp_name)) {
ret = 0;
goto out;
@@ -2834,7 +2839,7 @@ verbose_printk("btrfs: process_recorded_refs
%llu\n", sctx->cur_ino);
goto out;
if (ret) {
ret = is_first_ref(sctx, sctx->parent_root,
- ow_inode, cur->dir, cur->name,
+ ow_inode, cur->dir,
cur->dir_gen, cur->name,
cur->name_len);
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
btrfs_test_2.sh
The last test exposes an interesting issue: when a directory has a
deleted reference recorded, this deleted reference is not added to the
''check_dirs'' list. As a result, the upper directory (already
orphanized) is not rmdir''d.
Thanks,
Alex.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Alexander Block
<ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote:> I have pushed a for-alex branch to github with a new approach for the
> whole problem. Can you test this?
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Block
> <ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I''m currently working on another solution for the initial
problem. I
>> will create a for-alex branch for you to test later.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Alex Lyakas
>> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Alexander,
>>> (pls let me know when this gets annoying:).
>>>
>>> Parent:
>>> /mnt/src/v2_snap0/
>>> └── [ 257] file1
>>>
>>> Send:
>>> /mnt/src/v2_snap1
>>> └── [ 259] dir1
>>> └── [ 258] dir2
>>> └── [ 257] file1
>>>
>>> I encountered two problems:
>>> 1) process_recorded_refs_if_needed() if needed does not call
>>> process_recorded_refs() if both new_refs and deleted_refs() are
empty.
>>> But in this case, we need to get to finish_outoforder_dir() by dir2
to
>>> move file1 under it (this is before dir1 is created).
>>>
>>> @@ -4199,8 +4227,25 @@ static int
>>> process_recorded_refs_if_needed(struct send_ctx *sctx, int at_end)
>>> if (!at_end && sctx->cur_ino ==
sctx->cmp_key->objectid &&
>>> sctx->cmp_key->type <= BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY)
>>> goto out;
>>> - if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) &&
list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs))
>>> - goto out;
>>> + if (list_empty(&sctx->new_refs) &&
list_empty(&sctx->deleted_refs) &&
>>> + /*
>>> + * If this is a new directory, still do the
>>> finish_outoforder_dir() thing,
>>> + * even though it has no references recorded. This
>>> means that the directory''s
>>> + * parent has higher inode and was not created yet
>>> (thus we should have
>>> + * sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag set).
>>> + * Note that after a call to
process_recorded_refs(),
>>> new_refs and deleted_refs
>>> + * become empty, which prevents further calls to
>>> process_recorded_refs(),
>>> + * but here we need something else to prevent it,
so
>>> look at send_progress too.
>>> + */
>>> + !(S_ISDIR(sctx->cur_inode_mode) &&
sctx->cur_inode_new &&
>>> + sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan &&
>>> sctx->send_progress == sctx->cur_ino))
>>> + goto out;
>>>
>>> ret = process_recorded_refs(sctx);
>>>
>>> Then I encountered another problem that finish_outoforder_dir()
does
>>> not check for itself the cur_inode_first_ref_orphan flag:
>>> @@ -2736,7 +2754,17 @@ static int finish_outoforder_dir(struct
>>> send_ctx *sctx, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen)
>>> }
>>> fctx.dir_ino = dir;
>>>
>>> - ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen, fctx.dir_path,
1/*do_print*/);
>>> + /*
>>> + * If the current directory itself has a parent, which was
not
>>> + * created yet, we need to use gen_unique_name().
>>> + */
>>> + BUG_ON(sctx->cur_ino != dir || sctx->cur_inode_gen !=
dir_gen);
>>> + if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan)
>>> + ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, dir, dir_gen,
fctx.dir_path);
>>> + else
>>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, dir, dir_gen,
fctx.dir_path);
>>>
>>> Finally, the send_truncate(), send_chmod(),
send_chown(),send_utimes()
>>> need the following check:
>>>
>>> if (sctx->cur_ino == ino &&
sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan) {
>>> WARN_ON(sctx->cur_inode_gen != gen);
>>> ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p);
>>> } else {
>>> ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p);
>>> }
>>>
>>> All of them except utimes() are used with cur_ino only, so for
those
>>> this check is redundant (and probably makes sense to drop ino/gen
>>> parameters of them?).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Alex Lyakas
>>> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>> I did some very initial testing, and there is still an issue.
>>>> The logic of finish_outoforder_dir works as expected. But then
problem
>>>> is that later, when we process xattr/extents or finish the
inode, the
>>>> code still uses get_cur_path(), which brings an incorrect name.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following simple scenario:
>>>>
>>>> Parent tree:
>>>> /mnt/src/v2
>>>> └── [ 260] file1
>>>>
>>>> Send tree:
>>>> /mnt/src/v2
>>>> └── [ 262] dir1
>>>> └── [ 260] file1
>>>>
>>>> So when file1 is being processed, it is first renamed, as
expected:
>>>> C_RENAME: A_PATH=file1, A_PATH_TO=o260-511-0
>>>> But then, when we finish it, we do:
>>>> C_TRUNCATE: A_PATH=o262-517-0/file1, A_SIZE=16
>>>>
>>>> So in some functions like send_truncate(), send_write(),
send_utimes()
>>>> etc, we need:
>>>>
>>>> - ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p, 0/*do_print*/);
>>>> + if (sctx->cur_inode_first_ref_orphan)
>>>> + ret = gen_unique_name(sctx, ino, gen, p);
>>>> + else
>>>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, ino, gen, p,
0/*do_print*/);
>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>> goto out;
>>>>
>>>> I will continue testing more complicated cases now.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alex.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Alexander Block
>>>> <ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Alex Lyakas
>>>>> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>>> I am testing different scenarios in order to better
understand the
>>>>>> non-trivial magic of
>>>>>>
get_cur_path()/will_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_ref()/did_overwrite_first_ref().
>>>>>> I hit the following issue, when testing full-send:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is my source subvolume (inode numbers are
written):
>>>>>> tree -A --inodes --noreport /mnt/src/tmp/
>>>>>> /mnt/src/tmp/
>>>>>> └── [ 270] dir2
>>>>>> └── [ 268] file1_nod
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you see, the ino(file1_nod) < ino(dir2). It is
very easy to
>>>>>> achieve: first create the file, then the dir, and then
move the file
>>>>>> to dir.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During send the following happens (I augmented the send
code with many prints):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> file1_nod is sent first. Since its a new inode, it is
sent as an
>>>>>> orphan. When recording its reference,
__record_new_ref() calls
>>>>>> get_cur_path() for its parent (270). Then
__get_cur_name_and_parent()
>>>>>> is called on 270, which calls is_inode_existent(),
which calls
>>>>>> get_cur_inode_state(), and the state of the parent is
"will_create".
>>>>>> So __get_cur_name_and_parent() creates an orphan name
for it, and
>>>>>> finally the new reference for 268 is recorded as:
>>>>>> o270-136-0/file1_nod:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>>>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(256 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
>>>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>>>>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(268,135) type=0100000,
path=[o268-135-0]
>>>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(268 INODE_REF 270) : NEW
>>>>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (270,136): L(EX,136)
>>>>>> R(NE,18446744072099047770) sp=268 ==> will_create
>>>>>> [is_inode_existent:1498] (270,136): NOT existent
>>>>>> [__get_cur_name_and_parent:1918] ino(270,136) not
existent => unique
>>>>>> name [o270-136-0]
>>>>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(0,0) cur_path=[o270-136-0]
>>>>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref
[o270-136-0/file1_nod]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then process_recorded_refs() sees that 268 is still
orphan, so it
>>>>>> sends "rename" to its valid place, but the
problem is that its parent
>>>>>> dir was not sent yet (and its parent dir is also an
orphan):
>>>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(268,135): start with
refs
>>>>>> [28118.347602] [process_recorded_refs:2651]
ino(268,135): new=1,
>>>>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1,
valid_path=[o268-135-0]
>>>>>> [28118.347605] [process_recorded_refs:2701]
ino(268,135): is orphan,
>>>>>> move it: [o268-135-0]=>[o270-136-0/file1_nod]
>>>>>> [28118.347610] [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking
dir(270,136)
>>>>>> [28118.347612] [process_recorded_refs:2869]
ino(268,135) done with refs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the parent dir is processed:
>>>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_ITEM 0) : NEW
>>>>>> [send_create_inode:2407] NEW ino(270,136) type=040000,
path=[o270-136-0]
>>>>>> [changed_cb:4102] key(270 INODE_REF 256) : NEW
>>>>>> [get_cur_path:2051] ino(256,133) cur_path=[]
>>>>>> [__record_new_ref:2911] record new ref [dir2]
>>>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2601] ino(270,136): start with
refs
>>>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2651] ino(270,136): new=1,
>>>>>> did_overwrite_first_ref=0, is_orphan=1,
valid_path=[o270-136-0]
>>>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2701] ino(270,136): is orphan,
move it:
>>>>>> [o270-136-0]=>[dir2]
>>>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2837] checking dir(256,133)
>>>>>> [get_cur_inode_state:1475] (256,133): L(EX,133)
>>>>>> R(NE,18446612135413283512) sp=270 ==> did_create
>>>>>> [process_recorded_refs:2869] ino(270,136) done with
refs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing special here, the parent is first sent as an
orphan, and then
>>>>>> renamed to its valid name, but it''s too late.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During receive:
>>>>>> ERROR: rename o268-135-0 -> o270-136-0/file1_nod
failed. No such file
>>>>>> or directory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not yet sure where is the proper place to fix
this, I just wanted
>>>>>> to report it first. Basically, I think that when
sending any kind of
>>>>>> A_PATH, it is needed to ensure that path components
exist, either as
>>>>>> orphan or real path (by sending them out-of-order if
needed?). But I
>>>>>> am not yet sure where is the core place that should
ensure this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have pushed a fix for this case. Basically, the solution
is to
>>>>> postpone the processing of refs in not created dirs until
the dir is
>>>>> created. Big thanks for investigating this one.
Alexander Block
2012-Jul-28 09:56 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Alex Lyakas <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Alexander, > your solution is simple and elegant. I this this issue is solved now. Thanks! > Two minor issues: > 1) > /* > * We need some special handling for inodes that get processed before the parent > * directory got created. See process_all_refs for details. > * This function does the check if we already created the dir out of order. > */ > /* > * Only creates the inode if it is: > * 1. Not a directory > * 2. Or a directory which was not created already due to out of order > * directories. See did_create_dir and process_all_refs for details. > */ > > These comments tell to look at process_all_refs(), while we should > look at process_recorded_refs(). > > 2) > * We can however not delete the orphan in case the inode relies > * in a directory that was not created yet (see > * __record_new_ref) > */ > This part should be removed, because your new solution does not work this way.Whoops...corrected all comments.> > > If you find, time, pls look at the two attached scripts. > > btrfs_test_1.sh: > it tries to explore the is_first_ref() issue and founds a problem. > Proposed patch - compare also the (dir,gen) tuple and only the name: > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > index 68e504c..b83ec5f 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > @@ -1597,7 +1597,7 @@ out: > > static int is_first_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx, > struct btrfs_root *root, > - u64 ino, u64 dir, > + u64 ino, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen, > const char *name, int name_len) > { > int ret; > @@ -1613,6 +1613,11 @@ static int is_first_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx, > if (ret < 0) > goto out; > > + if (dir != tmp_dir || dir_gen != tmp_dir_gen) { > + ret = 0; > + goto out; > + } > + > if (name_len != fs_path_len(tmp_name)) { > ret = 0; > goto out; > @@ -2834,7 +2839,7 @@ verbose_printk("btrfs: process_recorded_refs > %llu\n", sctx->cur_ino); > goto out; > if (ret) { > ret = is_first_ref(sctx, sctx->parent_root, > - ow_inode, cur->dir, cur->name, > + ow_inode, cur->dir, > cur->dir_gen, cur->name, > cur->name_len); > if (ret < 0) > goto out; >I did not apply the patch but instead added a check for dir != tmp_dir only. The reason to not check for gen is that I have a rule in my mind: I only pass the generation number to functions where I want to know the *current* state. is_first_ref is for permanent state, the return value never changes while sending. I could however not reproduce the problem with test_1.sh, but it should fix it.> > btrfs_test_2.sh > The last test exposes an interesting issue: when a directory has a > deleted reference recorded, this deleted reference is not added to the > ''check_dirs'' list. As a result, the upper directory (already > orphanized) is not rmdir''d.You''ll find a commit in my repo to fix this. The problem was, that moved directories do not get into the delete_refs loop and thus the parent of the old location is never added to the check_dirs list. I have force pushed to for-alex, if you have time I''d be happy if you test again :)> > Thanks, > Alex.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2012-Jul-29 15:06 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
Alexander, yes, I will re-test and let you know. Expect to hear from me this week. Do you plan to merge this "for-alex" branch into some "mainline" branch, before you take off? Thanks, Alex. On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Alexander Block <ablock84@googlemail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Alex Lyakas > <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Alexander, >> your solution is simple and elegant. I this this issue is solved now. Thanks! >> Two minor issues: >> 1) >> /* >> * We need some special handling for inodes that get processed before the parent >> * directory got created. See process_all_refs for details. >> * This function does the check if we already created the dir out of order. >> */ >> /* >> * Only creates the inode if it is: >> * 1. Not a directory >> * 2. Or a directory which was not created already due to out of order >> * directories. See did_create_dir and process_all_refs for details. >> */ >> >> These comments tell to look at process_all_refs(), while we should >> look at process_recorded_refs(). >> >> 2) >> * We can however not delete the orphan in case the inode relies >> * in a directory that was not created yet (see >> * __record_new_ref) >> */ >> This part should be removed, because your new solution does not work this way. > Whoops...corrected all comments. >> >> >> If you find, time, pls look at the two attached scripts. >> >> btrfs_test_1.sh: >> it tries to explore the is_first_ref() issue and founds a problem. >> Proposed patch - compare also the (dir,gen) tuple and only the name: >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c >> index 68e504c..b83ec5f 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c >> @@ -1597,7 +1597,7 @@ out: >> >> static int is_first_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx, >> struct btrfs_root *root, >> - u64 ino, u64 dir, >> + u64 ino, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen, >> const char *name, int name_len) >> { >> int ret; >> @@ -1613,6 +1613,11 @@ static int is_first_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx, >> if (ret < 0) >> goto out; >> >> + if (dir != tmp_dir || dir_gen != tmp_dir_gen) { >> + ret = 0; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> if (name_len != fs_path_len(tmp_name)) { >> ret = 0; >> goto out; >> @@ -2834,7 +2839,7 @@ verbose_printk("btrfs: process_recorded_refs >> %llu\n", sctx->cur_ino); >> goto out; >> if (ret) { >> ret = is_first_ref(sctx, sctx->parent_root, >> - ow_inode, cur->dir, cur->name, >> + ow_inode, cur->dir, >> cur->dir_gen, cur->name, >> cur->name_len); >> if (ret < 0) >> goto out; >> > I did not apply the patch but instead added a check for dir != tmp_dir > only. The reason to not check for gen is that I have a rule in my > mind: I only pass the generation number to functions where I want to > know the *current* state. is_first_ref is for permanent state, the > return value never changes while sending. I could however not > reproduce the problem with test_1.sh, but it should fix it. >> >> btrfs_test_2.sh >> The last test exposes an interesting issue: when a directory has a >> deleted reference recorded, this deleted reference is not added to the >> ''check_dirs'' list. As a result, the upper directory (already >> orphanized) is not rmdir''d. > You''ll find a commit in my repo to fix this. The problem was, that > moved directories do not get into the delete_refs loop and thus the > parent of the old location is never added to the check_dirs list. > I have force pushed to for-alex, if you have time I''d be happy if you > test again :) >> >> Thanks, >> Alex.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2012-Jul-30 17:35 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
Hi,> I did not apply the patch but instead added a check for dir != tmp_dir > only. The reason to not check for gen is that I have a rule in my > mind: I only pass the generation number to functions where I want to > know the *current* state. is_first_ref is for permanent state, the > return value never changes while sending. I could however not > reproduce the problem with test_1.sh, but it should fix it.I understand. I was not sure about dir_gen either. Since you call this function to check the permanent state in a particular root, it does not make sense to compare the generation.>> >> btrfs_test_2.sh >> The last test exposes an interesting issue: when a directory has a >> deleted reference recorded, this deleted reference is not added to the >> ''check_dirs'' list. As a result, the upper directory (already >> orphanized) is not rmdir''d. > You''ll find a commit in my repo to fix this. The problem was, that > moved directories do not get into the delete_refs loop and thus the > parent of the old location is never added to the check_dirs list. > I have force pushed to for-alex, if you have time I''d be happy if you > test again :)Thanks. It fixes the issue. ...and pls expect another mail from me with a long list of questions I accumulated:) Thanks! Alex. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alexander Block
2012-Jul-30 20:17 UTC
Re: btrfs send/receive: if new inode ino is less than its new directory ino, incorrect path is sent
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Alex Lyakas <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi, >> I did not apply the patch but instead added a check for dir != tmp_dir >> only. The reason to not check for gen is that I have a rule in my >> mind: I only pass the generation number to functions where I want to >> know the *current* state. is_first_ref is for permanent state, the >> return value never changes while sending. I could however not >> reproduce the problem with test_1.sh, but it should fix it. > > I understand. I was not sure about dir_gen either. Since you call this > function to check the permanent state in a particular root, it does > not make sense to compare the generation. > >>> >>> btrfs_test_2.sh >>> The last test exposes an interesting issue: when a directory has a >>> deleted reference recorded, this deleted reference is not added to the >>> ''check_dirs'' list. As a result, the upper directory (already >>> orphanized) is not rmdir''d. >> You''ll find a commit in my repo to fix this. The problem was, that >> moved directories do not get into the delete_refs loop and thus the >> parent of the old location is never added to the check_dirs list. >> I have force pushed to for-alex, if you have time I''d be happy if you >> test again :) > Thanks. It fixes the issue. > > ...and pls expect another mail from me with a long list of questions I > accumulated:)Do you have more bugs that you found or only questions? If you have more bugs, it would be good if you could separate them from the mail and probably send it earlier. Regarding your earlier question: Yes, for-alex is meant to go upstream before I leave. It will become for-chris and with a final pull request.> > Thanks! > Alex.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html