Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] f2fs: introduce FAULT_BLKADDR_INCONSISTENCE

[Chao Yu]

On 2024/1/3 4:55, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/28, Chao Yu wrote:
> > We will encounter below inconsistent status when FAULT_BLKADDR type
> > fault injection is on.
> >
> > Info: checkpoint state = d6 :  nat_bits crc fsck compacted_summary orphan_inodes sudden-power-off
> > [ASSERT] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1254)  --> ino: 0x1c100 has i_blocks: 000000c0, but has 191 blocks
> > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1260)  --> [0x1c100] i_blocks=0x000000c0 -> 0xbf
> > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1269)  --> [0x1c100] i_compr_blocks=0x00000026 -> 0x27
> > [ASSERT] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1254)  --> ino: 0x1cadb has i_blocks: 0000002f, but has 46 blocks
> > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1260)  --> [0x1cadb] i_blocks=0x0000002f -> 0x2e
> > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1269)  --> [0x1cadb] i_compr_blocks=0x00000011 -> 0x12
> > [ASSERT] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1254)  --> ino: 0x1c62c has i_blocks: 00000002, but has 1 blocks
> > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1260)  --> [0x1c62c] i_blocks=0x00000002 -> 0x1
> >
> > After we inject fault into f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr() during truncation,
> > a) it missed to increase @nr_free or @valid_blocks
> > b) it can cause in blkaddr leak in truncated dnode
> > Which may cause inconsistent status.
> >
> > This patch separates FAULT_BLKADDR_INCONSISTENCE from FAULT_BLKADDR,
> > so that we can:
> > a) use FAULT_BLKADDR_INCONSISTENCE in f2fs_truncate_data_blocks_range()
> > to simulate inconsistent issue independently,
> > b) FAULT_BLKADDR fault will not cause any inconsistent status, we can
> > just use it to check error path handling in kernel side.
>
> How about defining FAULT_BLKADDR_VALIDITY and FAULT_BLKADDR_CONSISTENCY?

Better, :)

Thanks,