While exploring the test_badblocks ERASENOOP failure more, I realized
the problem is that we are nesting crc32cs.
To be clear, using crc32cs to validate progs in general is not an issue,
that is perfectly fine on paper. The issue is that we were using crc32cs
to validate progs _that contain crc32cs_.
Looking at the collision, we can see the fully expanded lleb128s we use
for our cksum tags:
00 00 00 ff b0 02 00 87 80 80 00 3e c0 7f 7e => bdfa9b10
ab 77 de c2 b0 03 00 87 80 80 00 3e 38 d5 22 => bdfa9b10
'-.-' ^ '----.----' '----.----'
'----|------|-----------|-- cksum tag
'------|-----------|-- cksum weight (0)
'-----------|-- cksum size + padding
'-- cksum crc32c
So we ended up perfectly aligning the cksum's crc32c with our cache
line. Lucky us.
Unfortunately funny math makes it so that whenever a crc32c contains a
crc32c, the inner crc32c sort of cancels itself out from the outer
crc32c. So these two messages end up mathematically equivalent, even
though they contain different data:
crc(m) = m(x) x^|P|-1 mod P
crc(m ++ crc(m)) = (m(x) x^|P|-1 + (m(x) x^|P|-1 mod P)) x^|P|-1 mod P
crc(m ++ crc(m)) = (m(x) x^|P|-1 + m(x) x^|P|-1) x^|P|-1 mod P
crc(m ++ crc(m)) = 0 x^|P|-1 mod P
crc(m ++ crc(m)) = 0
So using a crc32c to check progs is not fit for purpose.
This leaves us with a couple options:
1. Use a different checksum, or do something like rearranging bytes to
avoid this cancelling out issue. Unfortunately this gets tricky since
crc32cs are linear, simply using an xor mask won't work...
2. Don't check progs at such a low-level, but at a high-level using the
rbyd/data block crc32cs. Since this would mean only one crc32c, this
would avoid nesting issues. Unfortunately this would probably come
with quite a high code cost to try to keep track of both the
before+after rbyd cksums everywhere...
3. Just read back the data into the rcache to compare at the byte-level,
which would mean clobbering our rcache when prog checking is enabled.
This commit goes with option 3., which is probably the simplest. It also
removes any question of crc32c collision, which could be a real nuisance
when debugging low-level block device operations, a use case where prog
checking will hopefully be quite valuable.
Clobbering the rcache also has the advantage of reverting the prog
>= read requirement, which is nice for flexibility. Though this needs to
be tested.
---
There was a bit of a hiccup, and that was how prog checking interacts
with lfsr_bd_cpy. lfsr_bd_cpy used the rcache to hold data being copied
to/from disk, but this data needs to be checked, and prog checking would
clobber the rcache. Problems! I guess this is one footgun of the
internal lfsr_bd_readnext API...
The solution is to instead turn this around and use the pcache to hold
any copied data, since this would not be clobbered when prog checking.
This has some other knock-on effects, mainly that we can't take
advantage of read hints in lfsr_bd_cpy, but has the added advantage of
potentially not clobbering the rcache at all when no checking progs.
Code changes were fairly minimal:
code stack
before: 33718 2608
after: 33690 (-0.1%) 2608 (+0.0%)
Christopher Haster
8e77a5eebc