| Message ID | d8147c41-fb2b-bdf7-b660-1f3c8448c33f@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] ocfs2: clear links count in ocfs2_mknod() if an error occurs | expand |
On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:45:35 +0800 Wangyan <wangyan122@huawei.com> wrote: > In this condition, the inode can not be wiped when error happened. > ocfs2_mkdir() > ->ocfs2_mknod() > ->ocfs2_mknod_locked() > ->__ocfs2_mknod_locked() > ->ocfs2_set_links_count() // i_links_count is 2 > -> ... // an error accrue, goto roll_back or leave. > ->ocfs2_commit_trans() > ->iput(inode) > ->evict() > ->ocfs2_evict_inode() > ->ocfs2_delete_inode() > ->ocfs2_inode_lock() > ->ocfs2_inode_lock_update() > ->ocfs2_refresh_inode() > ->set_nlink(); // inode->i_nlink is 2 now. > /* if wipe is 0, it will goto bail_unlock_inode */ > ->ocfs2_query_inode_wipe() > ->if (inode->i_nlink) return; // wipe is 0. > /* inode can not be wiped */ > ->ocfs2_wipe_inode() > So, we need clear links before the transaction committed. Do we think these fixes should be backported into -stable kernels?
Yes, I think these fixes should be backported into -stable kernels. On 2020/5/28 6:52, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:45:35 +0800 Wangyan <wangyan122@huawei.com> wrote: > >> In this condition, the inode can not be wiped when error happened. >> ocfs2_mkdir() >> ->ocfs2_mknod() >> ->ocfs2_mknod_locked() >> ->__ocfs2_mknod_locked() >> ->ocfs2_set_links_count() // i_links_count is 2 >> -> ... // an error accrue, goto roll_back or leave. >> ->ocfs2_commit_trans() >> ->iput(inode) >> ->evict() >> ->ocfs2_evict_inode() >> ->ocfs2_delete_inode() >> ->ocfs2_inode_lock() >> ->ocfs2_inode_lock_update() >> ->ocfs2_refresh_inode() >> ->set_nlink(); // inode->i_nlink is 2 now. >> /* if wipe is 0, it will goto bail_unlock_inode */ >> ->ocfs2_query_inode_wipe() >> ->if (inode->i_nlink) return; // wipe is 0. >> /* inode can not be wiped */ >> ->ocfs2_wipe_inode() >> So, we need clear links before the transaction committed. > > Do we think these fixes should be backported into -stable kernels? > > > > . >
Hi, On 2020/5/26 15:45, Wangyan wrote: > In this condition, the inode can not be wiped when error happened. > ocfs2_mkdir() > ->ocfs2_mknod() > ->ocfs2_mknod_locked() > ->__ocfs2_mknod_locked() > ->ocfs2_set_links_count() // i_links_count is 2 > -> ... // an error accrue, goto roll_back or leave. > ->ocfs2_commit_trans() > ->iput(inode) > ->evict() > ->ocfs2_evict_inode() > ->ocfs2_delete_inode() > ->ocfs2_inode_lock() > ->ocfs2_inode_lock_update() > ->ocfs2_refresh_inode() > ->set_nlink(); // inode->i_nlink is 2 now. > /* if wipe is 0, it will goto bail_unlock_inode */ > ->ocfs2_query_inode_wipe() > ->if (inode->i_nlink) return; // wipe is 0. > /* inode can not be wiped */ > ->ocfs2_wipe_inode() > So, we need clear links before the transaction committed. > > Signed-off-by: Yan Wang <wangyan122@huawei.com> > Reviewed-by: Jun Piao <piaojun@huawei.com> > --- > fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > index 5381020aaa9a..e61fdd8972ec 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > @@ -453,8 +453,12 @@ static int ocfs2_mknod(struct inode *dir, > leave: > if (status < 0 && did_quota_inode) > dquot_free_inode(inode); > - if (handle) > + if (handle) { > + if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh != NULL) > + ocfs2_set_links_count((struct ocfs2_dinode *) > + new_fe_bh->b_data, 0); Seems no need to do this rollback under handle? Only if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh) will be okay. > ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle); > + } > > ocfs2_inode_unlock(dir, 1); > if (did_block_signals) > @@ -598,6 +602,8 @@ static int __ocfs2_mknod_locked(struct inode *dir, > leave: > if (status < 0) { > if (*new_fe_bh) { > + if (fe) > + ocfs2_set_links_count(fe, 0); Leave this to caller will be enough. Thanks, Joseph > brelse(*new_fe_bh);> *new_fe_bh = NULL; > } > @@ -2023,8 +2029,12 @@ static int ocfs2_symlink(struct inode *dir, > ocfs2_clusters_to_bytes(osb->sb, 1)); > if (status < 0 && did_quota_inode) > dquot_free_inode(inode); > - if (handle) > + if (handle) { > + if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh != NULL) > + ocfs2_set_links_count((struct ocfs2_dinode *) > + new_fe_bh->b_data, 0); > ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle); > + } > > ocfs2_inode_unlock(dir, 1); > if (did_block_signals) >
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:30:30 +0800 Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2020/5/26 15:45, Wangyan wrote: > > In this condition, the inode can not be wiped when error happened. > > ocfs2_mkdir() > > ->ocfs2_mknod() > > ->ocfs2_mknod_locked() > > ->__ocfs2_mknod_locked() > > ->ocfs2_set_links_count() // i_links_count is 2 > > -> ... // an error accrue, goto roll_back or leave. > > ->ocfs2_commit_trans() > > ->iput(inode) > > ->evict() > > ->ocfs2_evict_inode() > > ->ocfs2_delete_inode() > > ->ocfs2_inode_lock() > > ->ocfs2_inode_lock_update() > > ->ocfs2_refresh_inode() > > ->set_nlink(); // inode->i_nlink is 2 now. > > /* if wipe is 0, it will goto bail_unlock_inode */ > > ->ocfs2_query_inode_wipe() > > ->if (inode->i_nlink) return; // wipe is 0. > > /* inode can not be wiped */ > > ->ocfs2_wipe_inode() > > So, we need clear links before the transaction committed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yan Wang <wangyan122@huawei.com> > > Reviewed-by: Jun Piao <piaojun@huawei.com> > > --- > > fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > > index 5381020aaa9a..e61fdd8972ec 100644 > > --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > > @@ -453,8 +453,12 @@ static int ocfs2_mknod(struct inode *dir, > > leave: > > if (status < 0 && did_quota_inode) > > dquot_free_inode(inode); > > - if (handle) > > + if (handle) { > > + if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh != NULL) > > + ocfs2_set_links_count((struct ocfs2_dinode *) > > + new_fe_bh->b_data, 0); > > Seems no need to do this rollback under handle? > Only if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh) will be okay. > > > ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle); > > + } > > > > ocfs2_inode_unlock(dir, 1); > > if (did_block_signals) > > @@ -598,6 +602,8 @@ static int __ocfs2_mknod_locked(struct inode *dir, > > leave: > > if (status < 0) { > > if (*new_fe_bh) { > > + if (fe) > > + ocfs2_set_links_count(fe, 0); > > Leave this to caller will be enough. Are we still awaiting a response to these review comments?
I've been sitting on this patch series for over two years! I assume the problem isn't terribly serious. Can we please come to a decision on how to proceed? Thanks. The current patches from the mm tree are below. From: Wangyan <wangyan122@huawei.com> Subject: ocfs2: clear links count in ocfs2_mknod() if an error occurs In this condition, the inode can not be wiped when error happened. ocfs2_mkdir() ->ocfs2_mknod() ->ocfs2_mknod_locked() ->__ocfs2_mknod_locked() ->ocfs2_set_links_count() // i_links_count is 2 -> ... // an error accrue, goto roll_back or leave. ->ocfs2_commit_trans() ->iput(inode) ->evict() ->ocfs2_evict_inode() ->ocfs2_delete_inode() ->ocfs2_inode_lock() ->ocfs2_inode_lock_update() ->ocfs2_refresh_inode() ->set_nlink(); // inode->i_nlink is 2 now. /* if wipe is 0, it will goto bail_unlock_inode */ ->ocfs2_query_inode_wipe() ->if (inode->i_nlink) return; // wipe is 0. /* inode can not be wiped */ ->ocfs2_wipe_inode() So, we need clear links before the transaction committed. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/d8147c41-fb2b-bdf7-b660-1f3c8448c33f@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Yan Wang <wangyan122@huawei.com> Reviewed-by: Jun Piao <piaojun@huawei.com> Cc: Mark Fasheh <mark@fasheh.com> Cc: Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org> Cc: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com> Cc: Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@gmail.com> Cc: Changwei Ge <gechangwei@live.cn> Cc: Gang He <ghe@suse.com> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> --- fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c~ocfs2-clear-links-count-in-ocfs2_mknod-if-an-error-occurs +++ a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c @@ -454,8 +454,12 @@ roll_back: leave: if (status < 0 && did_quota_inode) dquot_free_inode(inode); - if (handle) + if (handle) { + if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh != NULL) + ocfs2_set_links_count((struct ocfs2_dinode *) + new_fe_bh->b_data, 0); ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle); + } ocfs2_inode_unlock(dir, 1); if (did_block_signals) @@ -599,6 +603,8 @@ static int __ocfs2_mknod_locked(struct i leave: if (status < 0) { if (*new_fe_bh) { + if (fe) + ocfs2_set_links_count(fe, 0); brelse(*new_fe_bh); *new_fe_bh = NULL; } @@ -2028,8 +2034,12 @@ bail: ocfs2_clusters_to_bytes(osb->sb, 1)); if (status < 0 && did_quota_inode) dquot_free_inode(inode); - if (handle) + if (handle) { + if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh != NULL) + ocfs2_set_links_count((struct ocfs2_dinode *) + new_fe_bh->b_data, 0); ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle); + } ocfs2_inode_unlock(dir, 1); if (did_block_signals)
Hi Andrew, On 10/17/22 7:32 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I've been sitting on this patch series for over two years! I assume > the problem isn't terribly serious. > > Can we please come to a decision on how to proceed? Thanks. > > The current patches from the mm tree are below. > It seems I commented before, but without any response. I'll take a look and send a new version base on the latest base today. Thanks, Joseph
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c index 5381020aaa9a..e61fdd8972ec 100644 --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c @@ -453,8 +453,12 @@ static int ocfs2_mknod(struct inode *dir, leave: if (status < 0 && did_quota_inode) dquot_free_inode(inode); - if (handle) + if (handle) { + if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh != NULL) + ocfs2_set_links_count((struct ocfs2_dinode *) + new_fe_bh->b_data, 0); ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle); + } ocfs2_inode_unlock(dir, 1); if (did_block_signals) @@ -598,6 +602,8 @@ static int __ocfs2_mknod_locked(struct inode *dir, leave: if (status < 0) { if (*new_fe_bh) { + if (fe) + ocfs2_set_links_count(fe, 0); brelse(*new_fe_bh); *new_fe_bh = NULL; } @@ -2023,8 +2029,12 @@ static int ocfs2_symlink(struct inode *dir, ocfs2_clusters_to_bytes(osb->sb, 1)); if (status < 0 && did_quota_inode) dquot_free_inode(inode); - if (handle) + if (handle) { + if (status < 0 && new_fe_bh != NULL) + ocfs2_set_links_count((struct ocfs2_dinode *) + new_fe_bh->b_data, 0); ocfs2_commit_trans(osb, handle); + } ocfs2_inode_unlock(dir, 1); if (did_block_signals)
In this condition, the inode can not be wiped when error happened. ocfs2_mkdir() ->ocfs2_mknod() ->ocfs2_mknod_locked() ->__ocfs2_mknod_locked() ->ocfs2_set_links_count() // i_links_count is 2 -> ... // an error accrue, goto roll_back or leave. ->ocfs2_commit_trans() ->iput(inode) ->evict() ->ocfs2_evict_inode() ->ocfs2_delete_inode() ->ocfs2_inode_lock() ->ocfs2_inode_lock_update() ->ocfs2_refresh_inode() ->set_nlink(); // inode->i_nlink is 2 now. /* if wipe is 0, it will goto bail_unlock_inode */ ->ocfs2_query_inode_wipe() ->if (inode->i_nlink) return; // wipe is 0. /* inode can not be wiped */ ->ocfs2_wipe_inode() So, we need clear links before the transaction committed. Signed-off-by: Yan Wang <wangyan122@huawei.com> Reviewed-by: Jun Piao <piaojun@huawei.com> --- fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)