* [PATCH v2] jbd2: Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready to be checkpointed
@ 2023-01-06 11:56 Zhihao Cheng
2023-01-06 14:22 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Zhihao Cheng @ 2023-01-06 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tytso, jack
Cc: linux-ext4, linux-kernel, chengzhihao1, yi.zhang, libaokun1,
zhanchengbin1
Following process will make data lost and could lead to a filesystem
corrupted problem:
1. jh(bh) is inserted into T1->t_checkpoint_list, bh is dirty, and
jh->b_transaction = NULL
2. T1 is added into journal->j_checkpoint_transactions.
3. Get bh prepare to write while doing checkpoing:
PA PB
do_get_write_access jbd2_log_do_checkpoint
spin_lock(&jh->b_state_lock)
if (buffer_dirty(bh))
clear_buffer_dirty(bh) // clear buffer dirty
set_buffer_jbddirty(bh)
transaction =
journal->j_checkpoint_transactions
jh = transaction->t_checkpoint_list
if (!buffer_dirty(bh))
__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh)
// bh won't be flushed
jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail
__jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved)
4. Aborting journal/Power-cut before writing latest bh on journal area.
In this way we get a corrupted filesystem with bh's data lost.
Fix it by moving the clearing of buffer_dirty bit just before the call
to __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(), both bit clearing and jh->b_transaction
assignment are under journal->j_list_lock locked, so that
jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() will wait until jh's new transaction fininshed
even bh is currently not dirty. And journal_shrink_one_cp_list() won't
remove jh from checkpoint list if the buffer head is reused in
do_get_write_access().
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: zhanchengbin <zhanchengbin1@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
v1->v2: Adopt Jan's suggestion, move the clearing of buffer_dirty bit
and __jbd2_journal_file_buffer() inside journal->j_list_lock
locking area.
fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
index 6a404ac1c178..06a5e7961ef2 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
@@ -1010,36 +1010,37 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
* ie. locked but not dirty) or tune2fs (which may actually have
* the buffer dirtied, ugh.) */
- if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
+ if (buffer_dirty(bh) && jh->b_transaction) {
/*
* First question: is this buffer already part of the current
* transaction or the existing committing transaction?
*/
- if (jh->b_transaction) {
- J_ASSERT_JH(jh,
- jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
- jh->b_transaction ==
- journal->j_committing_transaction);
- if (jh->b_next_transaction)
- J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction ==
- transaction);
- warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
- }
+ J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
+ jh->b_transaction == journal->j_committing_transaction);
+ if (jh->b_next_transaction)
+ J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
+ warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
/*
- * In any case we need to clean the dirty flag and we must
- * do it under the buffer lock to be sure we don't race
- * with running write-out.
+ * We need to clean the dirty flag and we must do it under the
+ * buffer lock to be sure we don't race with running write-out.
*/
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
+ /*
+ * Setting jbddirty after clearing buffer dirty is necessary.
+ * Function jbd2_journal_restart() could keep buffer on
+ * BJ_Reserved list until the transaction committing, then the
+ * buffer won't be dirtied by jbd2_journal_refile_buffer()
+ * after committing, the buffer couldn't fall on disk even
+ * last checkpoint finished, which may corrupt filesystem.
+ */
set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
}
- unlock_buffer(bh);
-
error = -EROFS;
if (is_handle_aborted(handle)) {
spin_unlock(&jh->b_state_lock);
+ unlock_buffer(bh);
goto out;
}
error = 0;
@@ -1049,8 +1050,10 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
* b_next_transaction points to it
*/
if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
- jh->b_next_transaction == transaction)
+ jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
+ unlock_buffer(bh);
goto done;
+ }
/*
* this is the first time this transaction is touching this buffer,
@@ -1074,10 +1077,24 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
*/
smp_wmb();
spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+ if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
+ /*
+ * Execute buffer dirty clearing and jh->b_transaction
+ * assignment under journal->j_list_lock locked to
+ * prevent bh being removed from checkpoint list if
+ * the buffer is in an intermediate state (not dirty
+ * and jh->b_transaction is NULL).
+ */
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
+ set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
+ }
__jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved);
spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+ unlock_buffer(bh);
goto done;
}
+ unlock_buffer(bh);
+
/*
* If there is already a copy-out version of this buffer, then we don't
* need to make another one
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] jbd2: Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready to be checkpointed
2023-01-06 11:56 [PATCH v2] jbd2: Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready to be checkpointed Zhihao Cheng
@ 2023-01-06 14:22 ` Jan Kara
2023-01-07 9:16 ` Zhihao Cheng
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2023-01-06 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhihao Cheng
Cc: tytso, jack, linux-ext4, linux-kernel, yi.zhang, libaokun1,
zhanchengbin1
On Fri 06-01-23 19:56:03, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
> Following process will make data lost and could lead to a filesystem
> corrupted problem:
>
> 1. jh(bh) is inserted into T1->t_checkpoint_list, bh is dirty, and
> jh->b_transaction = NULL
> 2. T1 is added into journal->j_checkpoint_transactions.
> 3. Get bh prepare to write while doing checkpoing:
> PA PB
> do_get_write_access jbd2_log_do_checkpoint
> spin_lock(&jh->b_state_lock)
> if (buffer_dirty(bh))
> clear_buffer_dirty(bh) // clear buffer dirty
> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh)
> transaction =
> journal->j_checkpoint_transactions
> jh = transaction->t_checkpoint_list
> if (!buffer_dirty(bh))
> __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh)
> // bh won't be flushed
> jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail
> __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved)
> 4. Aborting journal/Power-cut before writing latest bh on journal area.
>
> In this way we get a corrupted filesystem with bh's data lost.
>
> Fix it by moving the clearing of buffer_dirty bit just before the call
> to __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(), both bit clearing and jh->b_transaction
> assignment are under journal->j_list_lock locked, so that
> jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() will wait until jh's new transaction fininshed
> even bh is currently not dirty. And journal_shrink_one_cp_list() won't
> remove jh from checkpoint list if the buffer head is reused in
> do_get_write_access().
>
> Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: zhanchengbin <zhanchengbin1@huawei.com>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Thanks for the patch! It looks good, some suggestions for making it a bit
more tidy below:
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> index 6a404ac1c178..06a5e7961ef2 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> @@ -1010,36 +1010,37 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
> * ie. locked but not dirty) or tune2fs (which may actually have
> * the buffer dirtied, ugh.) */
>
> - if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> + if (buffer_dirty(bh) && jh->b_transaction) {
> /*
> * First question: is this buffer already part of the current
> * transaction or the existing committing transaction?
> */
> - if (jh->b_transaction) {
> - J_ASSERT_JH(jh,
> - jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> - jh->b_transaction ==
> - journal->j_committing_transaction);
> - if (jh->b_next_transaction)
> - J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction ==
> - transaction);
> - warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> - }
> + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> + jh->b_transaction == journal->j_committing_transaction);
> + if (jh->b_next_transaction)
> + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
> + warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> /*
> - * In any case we need to clean the dirty flag and we must
> - * do it under the buffer lock to be sure we don't race
> - * with running write-out.
> + * We need to clean the dirty flag and we must do it under the
> + * buffer lock to be sure we don't race with running write-out.
> */
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> + /*
> + * Setting jbddirty after clearing buffer dirty is necessary.
> + * Function jbd2_journal_restart() could keep buffer on
> + * BJ_Reserved list until the transaction committing, then the
> + * buffer won't be dirtied by jbd2_journal_refile_buffer()
> + * after committing, the buffer couldn't fall on disk even
> + * last checkpoint finished, which may corrupt filesystem.
> + */
> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> }
So I think the sequence:
if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
}
can be moved into the branch
if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
below. That way you can drop the assertions as well because they happen
later in do_get_write_access() again anyway.
Also I don't quite understand the new comment you have added. Do you mean
we need to not only clear BH_Dirty bit but also set BH_JBDdirty as dirtying
(through jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata()) does not have to follow after
do_get_write_access()?
Otherwise the patch looks good.
Honza
>
> - unlock_buffer(bh);
> -
> error = -EROFS;
> if (is_handle_aborted(handle)) {
> spin_unlock(&jh->b_state_lock);
> + unlock_buffer(bh);
> goto out;
> }
> error = 0;
> @@ -1049,8 +1050,10 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
> * b_next_transaction points to it
> */
> if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> - jh->b_next_transaction == transaction)
> + jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
> + unlock_buffer(bh);
> goto done;
> + }
>
> /*
> * this is the first time this transaction is touching this buffer,
> @@ -1074,10 +1077,24 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
> */
> smp_wmb();
> spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> + if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> + /*
> + * Execute buffer dirty clearing and jh->b_transaction
> + * assignment under journal->j_list_lock locked to
> + * prevent bh being removed from checkpoint list if
> + * the buffer is in an intermediate state (not dirty
> + * and jh->b_transaction is NULL).
> + */
> + JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> + set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> + }
> __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved);
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> + unlock_buffer(bh);
> goto done;
> }
> + unlock_buffer(bh);
> +
> /*
> * If there is already a copy-out version of this buffer, then we don't
> * need to make another one
> --
> 2.31.1
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] jbd2: Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready to be checkpointed
2023-01-06 14:22 ` Jan Kara
@ 2023-01-07 9:16 ` Zhihao Cheng
2023-01-09 11:20 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Zhihao Cheng @ 2023-01-07 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara
Cc: tytso, jack, linux-ext4, linux-kernel, yi.zhang, libaokun1,
zhanchengbin1
在 2023/1/6 22:22, Jan Kara 写道:
Hi Jan, thanks for reviewing.Some discussions below:
>> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
>> index 6a404ac1c178..06a5e7961ef2 100644
>> --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
>> +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
>> @@ -1010,36 +1010,37 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
>> * ie. locked but not dirty) or tune2fs (which may actually have
>> * the buffer dirtied, ugh.) */
>>
>> - if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
>> + if (buffer_dirty(bh) && jh->b_transaction) {
>> /*
>> * First question: is this buffer already part of the current
>> * transaction or the existing committing transaction?
>> */
>> - if (jh->b_transaction) {
>> - J_ASSERT_JH(jh,
>> - jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
>> - jh->b_transaction ==
>> - journal->j_committing_transaction);
>> - if (jh->b_next_transaction)
>> - J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction ==
>> - transaction);
>> - warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
>> - }
>> + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
>> + jh->b_transaction == journal->j_committing_transaction);
>> + if (jh->b_next_transaction)
>> + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
>> + warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
>> /*
>> - * In any case we need to clean the dirty flag and we must
>> - * do it under the buffer lock to be sure we don't race
>> - * with running write-out.
>> + * We need to clean the dirty flag and we must do it under the
>> + * buffer lock to be sure we don't race with running write-out.
>> */
>> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
>> clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
>> + /*
>> + * Setting jbddirty after clearing buffer dirty is necessary.
>> + * Function jbd2_journal_restart() could keep buffer on
>> + * BJ_Reserved list until the transaction committing, then the
>> + * buffer won't be dirtied by jbd2_journal_refile_buffer()
>> + * after committing, the buffer couldn't fall on disk even
>> + * last checkpoint finished, which may corrupt filesystem.
>> + */
>> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
>> }
>
> So I think the sequence:
>
> if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> }
>
> can be moved into the branch
>
> if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
>
> below. That way you can drop the assertions as well because they happen
> later in do_get_write_access() again anyway.
1. If we move the squence:
if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
}
into the branch
if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
, then we have a new situation(jh->b_transaction ==
journal->j_committing_transaction) to clear buffer dirty, so we need to
add an else-branch like(based on v2 patch):
--- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
@@ -1092,6 +1092,10 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct
journal_head *jh,
spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
unlock_buffer(bh);
goto done;
+ } else if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
+ warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
+ set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
}
unlock_buffer(bh);
I think we'd better not to move the sequence?
2. I agree that the assertions in branch 'if (jh->b_transaction)' are
redundant, I will remove them in v3. Thanks for pointing that.
> Also I don't quite understand the new comment you have added. Do you mean
> we need to not only clear BH_Dirty bit but also set BH_JBDdirty as dirtying
> (through jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata()) does not have to follow after
> do_get_write_access()?
>
Yes.
I think one reason we have non-empty commit_transaction->t_reserved_list
is that: jbd2_journal_restart() could let jh attach to transaction_1 and
dirty jh in transaction_2.
buffer is dirty after trans_0 committed
do_get_write_access() => jh->trans = old_handle->trans_1, clear buffer
dirty & set jbddirty, BJ_Reserved
jbd2_journal_restart() => stop old_handle && may jbd2_log_start_commit
&& start new_handle with trans_2
jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() => clear jbddirty & set buffer dirty &
set jh->b_transaction = NULL
do_checkpoint => buffer is fell on disk. If do_get_write_access() not
mark jbddirty, buffer won't be fell on disk after checkpoint, which
could corrupt filesystem.
I'm not sure whether we have the above path in realworld. I guess it
exists in theory according to the comments:
/*
* First thing we are allowed to do is to discard any remaining
* BJ_Reserved buffers. Note, it is _not_ permissible to assume
* that there are no such buffers: if a large filesystem
* operation like a truncate needs to split itself over multiple
* transactions, then it may try to do a jbd2_journal_restart()
while
* there are still BJ_Reserved buffers outstanding. These must
* be released cleanly from the current transaction.
*
* In this case, the filesystem must still reserve write access
* again before modifying the buffer in the new transaction,
but
* we do not require it to remember exactly which old buffers
it
* has reserved. This is consistent with the existing
behaviour
* that multiple jbd2_journal_get_write_access() calls to the
same
* buffer are perfectly permissible.
* We use journal->j_state_lock here to serialize processing of
* t_reserved_list with eviction of buffers from
journal_unmap_buffer().
*/
while (commit_transaction->t_reserved_list) { [...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] jbd2: Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready to be checkpointed
2023-01-07 9:16 ` Zhihao Cheng
@ 2023-01-09 11:20 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2023-01-09 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhihao Cheng
Cc: Jan Kara, tytso, jack, linux-ext4, linux-kernel, yi.zhang,
libaokun1, zhanchengbin1
On Sat 07-01-23 17:16:10, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
> 在 2023/1/6 22:22, Jan Kara 写道:
>
> Hi Jan, thanks for reviewing.Some discussions below:
>
>
> > > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> > > index 6a404ac1c178..06a5e7961ef2 100644
> > > --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> > > +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> > > @@ -1010,36 +1010,37 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh,
> > > * ie. locked but not dirty) or tune2fs (which may actually have
> > > * the buffer dirtied, ugh.) */
> > > - if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> > > + if (buffer_dirty(bh) && jh->b_transaction) {
> > > /*
> > > * First question: is this buffer already part of the current
> > > * transaction or the existing committing transaction?
> > > */
> > > - if (jh->b_transaction) {
> > > - J_ASSERT_JH(jh,
> > > - jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> > > - jh->b_transaction ==
> > > - journal->j_committing_transaction);
> > > - if (jh->b_next_transaction)
> > > - J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction ==
> > > - transaction);
> > > - warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> > > - }
> > > + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> > > + jh->b_transaction == journal->j_committing_transaction);
> > > + if (jh->b_next_transaction)
> > > + J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
> > > + warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> > > /*
> > > - * In any case we need to clean the dirty flag and we must
> > > - * do it under the buffer lock to be sure we don't race
> > > - * with running write-out.
> > > + * We need to clean the dirty flag and we must do it under the
> > > + * buffer lock to be sure we don't race with running write-out.
> > > */
> > > JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> > > clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Setting jbddirty after clearing buffer dirty is necessary.
> > > + * Function jbd2_journal_restart() could keep buffer on
> > > + * BJ_Reserved list until the transaction committing, then the
> > > + * buffer won't be dirtied by jbd2_journal_refile_buffer()
> > > + * after committing, the buffer couldn't fall on disk even
> > > + * last checkpoint finished, which may corrupt filesystem.
> > > + */
> > > set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> > > }
> >
> > So I think the sequence:
> >
> > if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> > warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> > JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> > clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> > set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> > }
> >
> > can be moved into the branch
> >
> > if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> > jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
> >
> > below. That way you can drop the assertions as well because they happen
> > later in do_get_write_access() again anyway.
>
> 1. If we move the squence:
> if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> }
>
> into the branch
>
> if (jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) {
>
> , then we have a new situation(jh->b_transaction ==
> journal->j_committing_transaction) to clear buffer dirty, so we need to add
> an else-branch like(based on v2 patch):
> --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> @@ -1092,6 +1092,10 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct
> journal_head *jh,
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> unlock_buffer(bh);
> goto done;
> + } else if (test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> + warn_dirty_buffer(bh);
> + JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "Journalling dirty buffer");
> + set_buffer_jbddirty(bh);
> }
> unlock_buffer(bh);
>
> I think we'd better not to move the sequence?
Oh, you're right. So yeah, keep this sequence where it was.
> 2. I agree that the assertions in branch 'if (jh->b_transaction)' are
> redundant, I will remove them in v3. Thanks for pointing that.
OK, thanks!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-09 11:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-06 11:56 [PATCH v2] jbd2: Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready to be checkpointed Zhihao Cheng
2023-01-06 14:22 ` Jan Kara
2023-01-07 9:16 ` Zhihao Cheng
2023-01-09 11:20 ` Jan Kara
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.