* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink()
@ 2013-06-27 3:05 Younger Liu
2013-06-27 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Younger Liu @ 2013-06-27 3:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
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).
Signed-off-by: Younger Liu <younger.liu@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jensen <shencanquan@huawei.com>
---
fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
index e3fce49..ddb4915 100644
--- 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;
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);
}
leave:
--
1.7.9.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink()
2013-06-27 3:05 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink() Younger Liu
@ 2013-06-27 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
2013-06-28 5:52 ` Younger Liu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2013-06-27 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
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);
}
_
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink()
2013-06-27 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2013-06-28 5:52 ` Younger Liu
2013-06-28 6:38 ` Jeff Liu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Younger Liu @ 2013-06-28 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
On 2013/6/28 5:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks for your review.
> 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);
> }
> _
>
...
This patch looks fine to me. I also test it, and the result is fine.
You can consider to add:
Reviewed-by: Younger Liu <younger.liu@huawei.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink()
2013-06-28 5:52 ` Younger Liu
@ 2013-06-28 6:38 ` Jeff Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Liu @ 2013-06-28 6:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
On 06/28/2013 01:52 PM, Younger Liu wrote:
> On 2013/6/28 5:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Thanks for your review.
>
>> 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);
>> }
>> _
>>
> ...
>
> This patch looks fine to me. I also test it, and the result is fine.
> You can consider to add:
> Reviewed-by: Younger Liu <younger.liu@huawei.com>
I'd like to have a minor change for the naming conventions of inode_is_unlinkable()
to avoid any possible conflicts to the VFS exported methods in the future, i.e,
s/inode_is_unlinkable/ocfs2_inode_is_unlinkable/
How about below changes in addition to above fix up?
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
index d11cf81..6708d29 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
@@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ static int ocfs2_remote_dentry_delete(struct dentry *dentry)
return ret;
}
-static inline int inode_is_unlinkable(struct inode *inode)
+static inline int ocfs2_inode_is_unlinkable(struct inode *inode)
{
if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) {
if (inode->i_nlink == 2)
@@ -866,7 +866,7 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *dir,
goto leave;
}
- if (inode_is_unlinkable(inode)) {
+ if (ocfs2_inode_is_unlinkable(inode)) {
status = ocfs2_prepare_orphan_dir(osb, &orphan_dir,
OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_blkno,
orphan_name, &orphan_insert);
Thanks,
-Jeff
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-06-28 6:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-06-27 3:05 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix readonly issue in ocfs2_unlink() Younger Liu
2013-06-27 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
2013-06-28 5:52 ` Younger Liu
2013-06-28 6:38 ` Jeff Liu
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.