All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink()
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:58:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130627145855.6ed028022d3a63fa97dcee13@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51CBAC04.6010805@huawei.com>

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:05:40 +0800 Younger Liu <younger.liu@huawei.com> wrote:

> While deleting a file with ocfs2_unlink(), there is a bug in this 
> function. This bug will result in filesystem read-only.
> 
> After calling ocfs2_orphan_add(), the file which will be deleted 
> is added into orphan dir. If ocfs2_delete_entry() fails, 
> the file still exists in the parent dir. 
> And this scenario introduces a conflict of metadata.
> 
> If a file is added into orphan dir, when we put inode of the file 
> with iput(), the inode i_flags is setted (~OCFS2_VALID_FL) in 
> ocfs2_remove_inode(), and then write back to disk. 
> 
> But as previously mentioned, the file still exists in the parent dir.
> On other nodes, the file can be still accessed. When first read the file 
> with ocfs2_read_blocks() from disk, It will check and avalidate inode 
> using ocfs2_validate_inode_block(). 
> So File system will be readonly because the inode is invalid.
> In other words, the inode i_flags has been setted (~OCFS2_VALID_FL).
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
> @@ -790,7 +790,7 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *dir,
>  			struct dentry *dentry)
>  {
>  	int status;
> -	int child_locked = 0;
> +	int child_locked = 0, is_unlinkable = 0;

Please note that the surrounding code was carful to use the
one-definition-per-line convention.  That's a good convention - more
readable, less patch rejects during code evolution, leaves room for a
nice little comment.

Also, type `bool' would have been appropraite here.

>  	struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
>  	struct inode *orphan_dir = NULL;
>  	struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(dir->i_sb);
> @@ -873,6 +873,7 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *dir,
>  			mlog_errno(status);
>  			goto leave;
>  		}
> +		is_unlinkable = 1;
>  	}
>  
>  	handle = ocfs2_start_trans(osb, ocfs2_unlink_credits(osb->sb));
> @@ -892,15 +893,6 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *dir,
>  
>  	fe = (struct ocfs2_dinode *) fe_bh->b_data;
>  
> -	if (inode_is_unlinkable(inode)) {
> -		status = ocfs2_orphan_add(osb, handle, inode, fe_bh, orphan_name,
> -					  &orphan_insert, orphan_dir);
> -		if (status < 0) {
> -			mlog_errno(status);
> -			goto leave;
> -		}
> -	}
> -
>  	/* delete the name from the parent dir */
>  	status = ocfs2_delete_entry(handle, dir, &lookup);
>  	if (status < 0) {
> @@ -923,6 +915,14 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *dir,
>  		mlog_errno(status);
>  		if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
>  			inc_nlink(dir);
> +		goto leave;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (is_unlinkable) {
> +		status = ocfs2_orphan_add(osb, handle, inode, fe_bh, orphan_name,
> +					  &orphan_insert, orphan_dir);
> +		if (status < 0)
> +			mlog_errno(status);
>  	}

This is yet another ocfs2 function which reports the same error two
times.  ho hum.

Please review:

--- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c~ocfs2-fix-readonly-issue-in-ocfs2_unlink-fix
+++ a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
@@ -790,7 +790,8 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *di
 			struct dentry *dentry)
 {
 	int status;
-	int child_locked = 0, is_unlinkable = 0;
+	int child_locked = 0;
+	bool is_unlinkable = false;
 	struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
 	struct inode *orphan_dir = NULL;
 	struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(dir->i_sb);
@@ -873,7 +874,7 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *di
 			mlog_errno(status);
 			goto leave;
 		}
-		is_unlinkable = 1;
+		is_unlinkable = true;
 	}
 
 	handle = ocfs2_start_trans(osb, ocfs2_unlink_credits(osb->sb));
@@ -919,8 +920,8 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *di
 	}
 
 	if (is_unlinkable) {
-		status = ocfs2_orphan_add(osb, handle, inode, fe_bh, orphan_name,
-					  &orphan_insert, orphan_dir);
+		status = ocfs2_orphan_add(osb, handle, inode, fe_bh,
+				orphan_name, &orphan_insert, orphan_dir);
 		if (status < 0)
 			mlog_errno(status);
 	}
_

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-27 21:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-27  3:05 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink() Younger Liu
2013-06-27 21:58 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2013-06-28  5:52   ` Younger Liu
2013-06-28  6:38     ` Jeff Liu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130627145855.6ed028022d3a63fa97dcee13@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.