On Mon, Dec 21 2020, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Current implementation of __sync_filesystem() ignores the > return code from ->sync_fs(). I am not sure why that's the case. > > Ignoring ->sync_fs() return code is problematic for overlayfs where > it can return error if sync_filesystem() on upper super block failed. > That error will simply be lost and sycnfs(overlay_fd), will get > success (despite the fact it failed). > > Al Viro noticed that there are other filesystems which can sometimes > return error in ->sync_fs() and these errors will be ignored too. > > fs/btrfs/super.c:2412: .sync_fs = btrfs_sync_fs, > fs/exfat/super.c:204: .sync_fs = exfat_sync_fs, > fs/ext4/super.c:1674: .sync_fs = ext4_sync_fs, > fs/f2fs/super.c:2480: .sync_fs = f2fs_sync_fs, > fs/gfs2/super.c:1600: .sync_fs = gfs2_sync_fs, > fs/hfsplus/super.c:368: .sync_fs = hfsplus_sync_fs, > fs/nilfs2/super.c:689: .sync_fs = nilfs_sync_fs, > fs/ocfs2/super.c:139: .sync_fs = ocfs2_sync_fs, > fs/overlayfs/super.c:399: .sync_fs = ovl_sync_fs, > fs/ubifs/super.c:2052: .sync_fs = ubifs_sync_fs, > > Hence, this patch tries to fix it and capture error returned > by ->sync_fs() and return to caller. I am specifically interested > in syncfs() path and return error to user. > > I am assuming that we want to continue to call __sync_blockdev() > despite the fact that there have been errors reported from > ->sync_fs(). So this patch continues to call __sync_blockdev() > even if ->sync_fs() returns an error. > > Al noticed that there are few other callsites where ->sync_fs() error > code is being ignored. > > sync_fs_one_sb(): For this it seems desirable to ignore the return code. > > dquot_disable(): Jan Kara mentioned that ignoring return code here is fine > because we don't want to fail dquot_disable() just beacuse > caches might be incoherent. > > dquot_quota_sync(): Jan thinks that it might make some sense to capture > return code here. But I am leaving it untouched for > now. When somebody needs it, they can easily fix it. > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal > --- > fs/sync.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/sync.c b/fs/sync.c > index 1373a610dc78..b5fb83a734cd 100644 > --- a/fs/sync.c > +++ b/fs/sync.c > @@ -30,14 +30,18 @@ > */ > static int __sync_filesystem(struct super_block *sb, int wait) > { > + int ret, ret2; > + > if (wait) > sync_inodes_sb(sb); > else > writeback_inodes_sb(sb, WB_REASON_SYNC); > > if (sb->s_op->sync_fs) > - sb->s_op->sync_fs(sb, wait); > - return __sync_blockdev(sb->s_bdev, wait); > + ret = sb->s_op->sync_fs(sb, wait); > + ret2 = __sync_blockdev(sb->s_bdev, wait); > + > + return ret ? ret : ret2; I'm surprised that the compiler didn't complain that 'ret' might be used uninitialized. NeilBrown > } > > /* > -- > 2.25.4