tree 5d7f62711ad9e76b6c6843a858f3bf78f9137a78
parent b771af2fcb4a8a2df7e9b8784cd80e1774c34198
author Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> 1380002476 +1000
committer Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> 1380044157 -0500

xfs: log recovery lsn ordering needs uuid check

After a fair number of xfstests runs, xfs/182 started to fail
regularly with a corrupted directory - a directory read verifier was
failing after recovery because it found a block with a XARM magic
number (remote attribute block) rather than a directory data block.

The first time I saw this repeated failure I did /something/ and the
problem went away, so I was never able to find the underlying
problem. Test xfs/182 failed again today, and I found the root
cause before I did /something else/ that made it go away.

Tracing indicated that the block in question was being correctly
logged, the log was being flushed by sync, but the buffer was not
being written back before the shutdown occurred. Tracing also
indicated that log recovery was also reading the block, but then
never writing it before log recovery invalidated the cache,
indicating that it was not modified by log recovery.

More detailed analysis of the corpse indicated that the filesystem
had a uuid of "a4131074-1872-4cac-9323-2229adbcb886" but the XARM
block had a uuid of "8f32f043-c3c9-e7f8-f947-4e7f989c05d3", which
indicated it was a block from an older filesystem. The reason that
log recovery didn't replay it was that the LSN in the XARM block was
larger than the LSN of the transaction being replayed, and so the
block was not overwritten by log recovery.

Hence, log recovery cant blindly trust the magic number and LSN in
the block - it must verify that it belongs to the filesystem being
recovered before using the LSN. i.e. if the UUIDs don't match, we
need to unconditionally recovery the change held in the log.

This patch was first tested on a block device that was repeatedly
causing xfs/182 to fail with the same failure on the same block with
the same directory read corruption signature (i.e. XARM block). It
did not fail, and hasn't failed since.

Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>