diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/filesystems/xfs-online-fsck-design.rst | 579 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/filesystems/xfs-self-describing-metadata.rst | 1 |
2 files changed, 580 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-online-fsck-design.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-online-fsck-design.rst index 42e82971e036..f45bf97fa9c4 100644 --- a/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-online-fsck-design.rst +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-online-fsck-design.rst @@ -864,3 +864,582 @@ Proposed patchsets include and `preservation of sickness info during memory reclaim <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=indirect-health-reporting>`_. + +5. Kernel Algorithms and Data Structures +======================================== + +This section discusses the key algorithms and data structures of the kernel +code that provide the ability to check and repair metadata while the system +is running. +The first chapters in this section reveal the pieces that provide the +foundation for checking metadata. +The remainder of this section presents the mechanisms through which XFS +regenerates itself. + +Self Describing Metadata +------------------------ + +Starting with XFS version 5 in 2012, XFS updated the format of nearly every +ondisk block header to record a magic number, a checksum, a universally +"unique" identifier (UUID), an owner code, the ondisk address of the block, +and a log sequence number. +When loading a block buffer from disk, the magic number, UUID, owner, and +ondisk address confirm that the retrieved block matches the specific owner of +the current filesystem, and that the information contained in the block is +supposed to be found at the ondisk address. +The first three components enable checking tools to disregard alleged metadata +that doesn't belong to the filesystem, and the fourth component enables the +filesystem to detect lost writes. + +The logging code maintains the checksum and the log sequence number of the last +transactional update. +Checksums are useful for detecting torn writes and other mischief between the +computer and its storage devices. +Sequence number tracking enables log recovery to avoid applying out of date +log updates to the filesystem. + +These two features improve overall runtime resiliency by providing a means for +the filesystem to detect obvious corruption when reading metadata blocks from +disk, but these buffer verifiers cannot provide any consistency checking +between metadata structures. + +For more information, please see the documentation for +Documentation/filesystems/xfs-self-describing-metadata.rst + +Reverse Mapping +--------------- + +The original design of XFS (circa 1993) is an improvement upon 1980s Unix +filesystem design. +In those days, storage density was expensive, CPU time was scarce, and +excessive seek time could kill performance. +For performance reasons, filesystem authors were reluctant to add redundancy to +the filesystem, even at the cost of data integrity. +Filesystems designers in the early 21st century choose different strategies to +increase internal redundancy -- either storing nearly identical copies of +metadata, or more space-efficient techniques such as erasure coding. +Obvious corruptions are typically repaired by copying replicas or +reconstructing from codes. + +For XFS, a different redundancy strategy was chosen to modernize the design: +a secondary space usage index that maps allocated disk extents back to their +owners. +By adding a new index, the filesystem retains most of its ability to scale +well to heavily threaded workloads involving large datasets, since the primary +file metadata (the directory tree, the file block map, and the allocation +groups) remain unchanged. +Although the reverse-mapping feature increases overhead costs for space +mapping activities just like any other system that improves redundancy, it +has two critical advantages: first, the reverse index is key to enabling online +fsck and other requested functionality such as filesystem reorganization, +better media failure reporting, and shrinking. +Second, the different ondisk storage format of the reverse mapping btree +defeats device-level deduplication, because the filesystem requires real +redundancy. + +A criticism of adding the secondary index is that it does nothing to improve +the robustness of user data storage itself. +This is a valid point, but adding a new index for file data block checksums +increases write amplification and turns data overwrites into copy-writes, which +age the filesystem prematurely. +In keeping with thirty years of precedent, users who want file data integrity +can supply as powerful a solution as they require. +As for metadata, the complexity of adding a new secondary index of space usage +is much less than adding volume management and storage device mirroring to XFS +itself. +Perfection of RAID and volume management are best left to existing layers in +the kernel. + +The information captured in a reverse space mapping record is as follows: + +.. code-block:: c + + struct xfs_rmap_irec { + xfs_agblock_t rm_startblock; /* extent start block */ + xfs_extlen_t rm_blockcount; /* extent length */ + uint64_t rm_owner; /* extent owner */ + uint64_t rm_offset; /* offset within the owner */ + unsigned int rm_flags; /* state flags */ + }; + +The first two fields capture the location and size of the physical space, +in units of filesystem blocks. +The owner field tells scrub which metadata structure or file inode have been +assigned this space. +For space allocated to files, the offset field tells scrub where the space was +mapped within the file fork. +Finally, the flags field provides extra information about the space usage -- +is this an attribute fork extent? A file mapping btree extent? Or an +unwritten data extent? + +Online filesystem checking judges the consistency of each primary metadata +record by comparing its information against all other space indices. +The reverse mapping index plays a key role in the consistency checking process +because it contains a centralized alternate copy of all space allocation +information. +Program runtime and ease of resource acquisition are the only real limits to +what online checking can consult. +For example, a file data extent mapping can be checked against: + +* The absence of an entry in the free space information. +* The absence of an entry in the inode index. +* The absence of an entry in the reference count data if the file is not + marked as having shared extents. +* The correspondence of an entry in the reverse mapping information. + +A key observation here is that only the reverse mapping can provide a positive +affirmation of correctness if the primary metadata is in doubt. +The checking code for most primary metadata follows a path similar to the +one outlined above. + +A second observation to make about this secondary index is that proving its +consistency with the primary metadata is difficult. +Demonstrating that a given reverse mapping record exactly corresponds to the +primary space metadata involves a full scan of all primary space metadata, +which is very time intensive. +Scanning activity for online fsck can only use non-blocking lock acquisition +primitives if the locking order is not the regular order as used by the rest of +the filesystem. +This means that forward progress during this part of a scan of the reverse +mapping data cannot be guaranteed if system load is especially heavy. +Therefore, it is not practical for online check to detect reverse mapping +records that lack a counterpart in the primary metadata. +Instead, scrub relies on rigorous cross-referencing during the primary space +mapping structure checks. + +Reverse mappings also play a key role in reconstruction of primary metadata. +The secondary information is general enough for online repair to synthesize a +complete copy of any primary space management metadata by locking that +resource, querying all reverse mapping indices looking for records matching +the relevant resource, and transforming the mapping into an appropriate format. +The details of how these records are staged, written to disk, and committed +into the filesystem are covered in subsequent sections. + +Checking and Cross-Referencing +------------------------------ + +The first step of checking a metadata structure is to examine every record +contained within the structure and its relationship with the rest of the +system. +XFS contains multiple layers of checking to try to prevent inconsistent +metadata from wreaking havoc on the system. +Each of these layers contributes information that helps the kernel to make +three decisions about the health of a metadata structure: + +- Is a part of this structure obviously corrupt (``XFS_SCRUB_OFLAG_CORRUPT``) ? +- Is this structure inconsistent with the rest of the system + (``XFS_SCRUB_OFLAG_XCORRUPT``) ? +- Is there so much damage around the filesystem that cross-referencing is not + possible (``XFS_SCRUB_OFLAG_XFAIL``) ? +- Can the structure be optimized to improve performance or reduce the size of + metadata (``XFS_SCRUB_OFLAG_PREEN``) ? +- Does the structure contain data that is not inconsistent but deserves review + by the system administrator (``XFS_SCRUB_OFLAG_WARNING``) ? + +The following sections describe how the metadata scrubbing process works. + +Metadata Buffer Verification +```````````````````````````` + +The lowest layer of metadata protection in XFS are the metadata verifiers built +into the buffer cache. +These functions perform inexpensive internal consistency checking of the block +itself, and answer these questions: + +- Does the block belong to this filesystem? + +- Does the block belong to the structure that asked for the read? + This assumes that metadata blocks only have one owner, which is always true + in XFS. + +- Is the type of data stored in the block within a reasonable range of what + scrub is expecting? + +- Does the physical location of the block match the location it was read from? + +- Does the block checksum match the data? + +The scope of the protections here are very limited -- verifiers can only +establish that the filesystem code is reasonably free of gross corruption bugs +and that the storage system is reasonably competent at retrieval. +Corruption problems observed at runtime cause the generation of health reports, +failed system calls, and in the extreme case, filesystem shutdowns if the +corrupt metadata force the cancellation of a dirty transaction. + +Every online fsck scrubbing function is expected to read every ondisk metadata +block of a structure in the course of checking the structure. +Corruption problems observed during a check are immediately reported to +userspace as corruption; during a cross-reference, they are reported as a +failure to cross-reference once the full examination is complete. +Reads satisfied by a buffer already in cache (and hence already verified) +bypass these checks. + +Internal Consistency Checks +``````````````````````````` + +The next higher level of metadata protection is the internal record +verification code built into the filesystem. +These checks are split between the buffer verifiers, the in-filesystem users of +the buffer cache, and the scrub code itself, depending on the amount of higher +level context required. +The scope of checking is still internal to the block. +For performance reasons, regular code may skip some of these checks unless +debugging is enabled or a write is about to occur. +Scrub functions, of course, must check all possible problems. +Either way, these higher level checking functions answer these questions: + +- Does the type of data stored in the block match what scrub is expecting? + +- Does the block belong to the owning structure that asked for the read? + +- If the block contains records, do the records fit within the block? + +- If the block tracks internal free space information, is it consistent with + the record areas? + +- Are the records contained inside the block free of obvious corruptions? + +Record checks in this category are more rigorous and more time-intensive. +For example, block pointers and inumbers are checked to ensure that they point +within the dynamically allocated parts of an allocation group and within +the filesystem. +Names are checked for invalid characters, and flags are checked for invalid +combinations. +Other record attributes are checked for sensible values. +Btree records spanning an interval of the btree keyspace are checked for +correct order and lack of mergeability (except for file fork mappings). + +Validation of Userspace-Controlled Record Attributes +```````````````````````````````````````````````````` + +Various pieces of filesystem metadata are directly controlled by userspace. +Because of this nature, validation work cannot be more precise than checking +that a value is within the possible range. +These fields include: + +- Superblock fields controlled by mount options +- Filesystem labels +- File timestamps +- File permissions +- File size +- File flags +- Names present in directory entries, extended attribute keys, and filesystem + labels +- Extended attribute key namespaces +- Extended attribute values +- File data block contents +- Quota limits +- Quota timer expiration (if resource usage exceeds the soft limit) + +Cross-Referencing Space Metadata +```````````````````````````````` + +The next higher level of checking is cross-referencing records between metadata +structures. +For regular runtime code, the cost of these checks is considered to be +prohibitively expensive, but as scrub is dedicated to rooting out +inconsistencies, it must pursue all avenues of inquiry. +The exact set of cross-referencing is highly dependent on the context of the +data structure being checked. + +The XFS btree code has keyspace scanning functions that online fsck uses to +cross reference one structure with another. +Specifically, scrub can scan the key space of an index to determine if that +keyspace is fully, sparsely, or not at all mapped to records. +For the reverse mapping btree, it is possible to mask parts of the key for the +purposes of performing a keyspace scan so that scrub can decide if the rmap +btree contains records mapping a certain extent of physical space without the +sparsenses of the rest of the rmap keyspace getting in the way. + +Btree blocks undergo the following checks before cross-referencing: + +- Does the type of data stored in the block match what scrub is expecting? + +- Does the block belong to the owning structure that asked for the read? + +- Do the records fit within the block? + +- Are the records contained inside the block free of obvious corruptions? + +- Are the name hashes in the correct order? + +- Do node pointers within the btree point to valid block addresses for the type + of btree? + +- Do child pointers point towards the leaves? + +- Do sibling pointers point across the same level? + +- For each node block record, does the record key accurate reflect the contents + of the child block? + +Space allocation records are cross-referenced as follows: + +1. Any space mentioned by any metadata structure are cross-referenced as + follows: + + - Does the reverse mapping index list only the appropriate owner as the + owner of each block? + + - Are none of the blocks claimed as free space? + + - If these aren't file data blocks, are none of the blocks claimed as space + shared by different owners? + +2. Btree blocks are cross-referenced as follows: + + - Everything in class 1 above. + + - If there's a parent node block, do the keys listed for this block match the + keyspace of this block? + + - Do the sibling pointers point to valid blocks? Of the same level? + + - Do the child pointers point to valid blocks? Of the next level down? + +3. Free space btree records are cross-referenced as follows: + + - Everything in class 1 and 2 above. + + - Does the reverse mapping index list no owners of this space? + + - Is this space not claimed by the inode index for inodes? + + - Is it not mentioned by the reference count index? + + - Is there a matching record in the other free space btree? + +4. Inode btree records are cross-referenced as follows: + + - Everything in class 1 and 2 above. + + - Is there a matching record in free inode btree? + + - Do cleared bits in the holemask correspond with inode clusters? + + - Do set bits in the freemask correspond with inode records with zero link + count? + +5. Inode records are cross-referenced as follows: + + - Everything in class 1. + + - Do all the fields that summarize information about the file forks actually + match those forks? + + - Does each inode with zero link count correspond to a record in the free + inode btree? + +6. File fork space mapping records are cross-referenced as follows: + + - Everything in class 1 and 2 above. + + - Is this space not mentioned by the inode btrees? + + - If this is a CoW fork mapping, does it correspond to a CoW entry in the + reference count btree? + +7. Reference count records are cross-referenced as follows: + + - Everything in class 1 and 2 above. + + - Within the space subkeyspace of the rmap btree (that is to say, all + records mapped to a particular space extent and ignoring the owner info), + are there the same number of reverse mapping records for each block as the + reference count record claims? + +Proposed patchsets are the series to find gaps in +`refcount btree +<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=scrub-detect-refcount-gaps>`_, +`inode btree +<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=scrub-detect-inobt-gaps>`_, and +`rmap btree +<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=scrub-detect-rmapbt-gaps>`_ records; +to find +`mergeable records +<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=scrub-detect-mergeable-records>`_; +and to +`improve cross referencing with rmap +<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=scrub-strengthen-rmap-checking>`_ +before starting a repair. + +Checking Extended Attributes +```````````````````````````` + +Extended attributes implement a key-value store that enable fragments of data +to be attached to any file. +Both the kernel and userspace can access the keys and values, subject to +namespace and privilege restrictions. +Most typically these fragments are metadata about the file -- origins, security +contexts, user-supplied labels, indexing information, etc. + +Names can be as long as 255 bytes and can exist in several different +namespaces. +Values can be as large as 64KB. +A file's extended attributes are stored in blocks mapped by the attr fork. +The mappings point to leaf blocks, remote value blocks, or dabtree blocks. +Block 0 in the attribute fork is always the top of the structure, but otherwise +each of the three types of blocks can be found at any offset in the attr fork. +Leaf blocks contain attribute key records that point to the name and the value. +Names are always stored elsewhere in the same leaf block. +Values that are less than 3/4 the size of a filesystem block are also stored +elsewhere in the same leaf block. +Remote value blocks contain values that are too large to fit inside a leaf. +If the leaf information exceeds a single filesystem block, a dabtree (also +rooted at block 0) is created to map hashes of the attribute names to leaf +blocks in the attr fork. + +Checking an extended attribute structure is not so straightfoward due to the +lack of separation between attr blocks and index blocks. +Scrub must read each block mapped by the attr fork and ignore the non-leaf +blocks: + +1. Walk the dabtree in the attr fork (if present) to ensure that there are no + irregularities in the blocks or dabtree mappings that do not point to + attr leaf blocks. + +2. Walk the blocks of the attr fork looking for leaf blocks. + For each entry inside a leaf: + + a. Validate that the name does not contain invalid characters. + + b. Read the attr value. + This performs a named lookup of the attr name to ensure the correctness + of the dabtree. + If the value is stored in a remote block, this also validates the + integrity of the remote value block. + +Checking and Cross-Referencing Directories +`````````````````````````````````````````` + +The filesystem directory tree is a directed acylic graph structure, with files +constituting the nodes, and directory entries (dirents) constituting the edges. +Directories are a special type of file containing a set of mappings from a +255-byte sequence (name) to an inumber. +These are called directory entries, or dirents for short. +Each directory file must have exactly one directory pointing to the file. +A root directory points to itself. +Directory entries point to files of any type. +Each non-directory file may have multiple directories point to it. + +In XFS, directories are implemented as a file containing up to three 32GB +partitions. +The first partition contains directory entry data blocks. +Each data block contains variable-sized records associating a user-provided +name with an inumber and, optionally, a file type. +If the directory entry data grows beyond one block, the second partition (which +exists as post-EOF extents) is populated with a block containing free space +information and an index that maps hashes of the dirent names to directory data +blocks in the first partition. +This makes directory name lookups very fast. +If this second partition grows beyond one block, the third partition is +populated with a linear array of free space information for faster +expansions. +If the free space has been separated and the second partition grows again +beyond one block, then a dabtree is used to map hashes of dirent names to +directory data blocks. + +Checking a directory is pretty straightfoward: + +1. Walk the dabtree in the second partition (if present) to ensure that there + are no irregularities in the blocks or dabtree mappings that do not point to + dirent blocks. + +2. Walk the blocks of the first partition looking for directory entries. + Each dirent is checked as follows: + + a. Does the name contain no invalid characters? + + b. Does the inumber correspond to an actual, allocated inode? + + c. Does the child inode have a nonzero link count? + + d. If a file type is included in the dirent, does it match the type of the + inode? + + e. If the child is a subdirectory, does the child's dotdot pointer point + back to the parent? + + f. If the directory has a second partition, perform a named lookup of the + dirent name to ensure the correctness of the dabtree. + +3. Walk the free space list in the third partition (if present) to ensure that + the free spaces it describes are really unused. + +Checking operations involving :ref:`parents <dirparent>` and +:ref:`file link counts <nlinks>` are discussed in more detail in later +sections. + +Checking Directory/Attribute Btrees +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +As stated in previous sections, the directory/attribute btree (dabtree) index +maps user-provided names to improve lookup times by avoiding linear scans. +Internally, it maps a 32-bit hash of the name to a block offset within the +appropriate file fork. + +The internal structure of a dabtree closely resembles the btrees that record +fixed-size metadata records -- each dabtree block contains a magic number, a +checksum, sibling pointers, a UUID, a tree level, and a log sequence number. +The format of leaf and node records are the same -- each entry points to the +next level down in the hierarchy, with dabtree node records pointing to dabtree +leaf blocks, and dabtree leaf records pointing to non-dabtree blocks elsewhere +in the fork. + +Checking and cross-referencing the dabtree is very similar to what is done for +space btrees: + +- Does the type of data stored in the block match what scrub is expecting? + +- Does the block belong to the owning structure that asked for the read? + +- Do the records fit within the block? + +- Are the records contained inside the block free of obvious corruptions? + +- Are the name hashes in the correct order? + +- Do node pointers within the dabtree point to valid fork offsets for dabtree + blocks? + +- Do leaf pointers within the dabtree point to valid fork offsets for directory + or attr leaf blocks? + +- Do child pointers point towards the leaves? + +- Do sibling pointers point across the same level? + +- For each dabtree node record, does the record key accurate reflect the + contents of the child dabtree block? + +- For each dabtree leaf record, does the record key accurate reflect the + contents of the directory or attr block? + +Cross-Referencing Summary Counters +`````````````````````````````````` + +XFS maintains three classes of summary counters: available resources, quota +resource usage, and file link counts. + +In theory, the amount of available resources (data blocks, inodes, realtime +extents) can be found by walking the entire filesystem. +This would make for very slow reporting, so a transactional filesystem can +maintain summaries of this information in the superblock. +Cross-referencing these values against the filesystem metadata should be a +simple matter of walking the free space and inode metadata in each AG and the +realtime bitmap, but there are complications that will be discussed in +:ref:`more detail <fscounters>` later. + +:ref:`Quota usage <quotacheck>` and :ref:`file link count <nlinks>` +checking are sufficiently complicated to warrant separate sections. + +Post-Repair Reverification +`````````````````````````` + +After performing a repair, the checking code is run a second time to validate +the new structure, and the results of the health assessment are recorded +internally and returned to the calling process. +This step is critical for enabling system administrator to monitor the status +of the filesystem and the progress of any repairs. +For developers, it is a useful means to judge the efficacy of error detection +and correction in the online and offline checking tools. diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-self-describing-metadata.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-self-describing-metadata.rst index b79dbf36dc94..a10c4ae6955e 100644 --- a/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-self-describing-metadata.rst +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/xfs-self-describing-metadata.rst @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +.. _xfs_self_describing_metadata: ============================ XFS Self Describing Metadata |