From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F7DC43603 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAF32206D5; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="CxhJfnzv"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="SzJWpPjg" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AAF32206D5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ieqjM-00038Z-84; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:23:56 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ieqjH-00037y-6c for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:23:51 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=BTpI7hrBIrWR3VuGaDkPYV0QtV65HZajqf5kO8OS+Ms=; b=CxhJfnzvWr9hPNC4D+1yjBi5wQ y1tv1PzLCmOrVAoz1M/rsiAt5DzqUVJ685yzomOL2KJjQ49VEbbtJtgr8BTYcs5MQZcKQgZArsrWd LkjBwIWO6APCWHq7d36opJHLsl90h6gS5OowXDkGrQHW8ExsGrwiSSh/AKX25T1mvWjs=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=BTpI7hrBIrWR3VuGaDkPYV0QtV65HZajqf5kO8OS+Ms=; b=SzJWpPjgvR/Y3vpvYqVhRKqqhC 9etDsDSZq8jRntU5peAf1hxWCR4QYYWzq55BvUPKlrop3jMPpQxcYAiG+/JB54ojIS5svs1tYlE/h 43VF1aDJ0cc4zKIKJTuB36NbP8IOZAcR9eXl70H9zToSRGFyRfivS31w1uMDJYt3H0Ek=; Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191] helo=huawei.com) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1ieqjE-000dJK-R2 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:23:51 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 406D7A3183CC6694E5BE; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:23:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:23:34 +0800 To: Jaegeuk Kim References: <20191209222345.1078-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <20191209222345.1078-6-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <88dcbca9-3757-a440-ed73-9d99a56b816c@huawei.com> <20191211012121.GA52962@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <00ced682-9522-236d-4078-4c8f2e348d39@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:23:34 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191211012121.GA52962@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1ieqjE-000dJK-R2 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 6/6] f2fs: set I_LINKABLE early to avoid wrong access by vfs X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 2019/12/11 9:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 12/10, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/12/10 6:23, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> This patch moves setting I_LINKABLE early in rename2(whiteout) to avoid the >>> below warning. >>> >>> [ 3189.163385] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 59523 at fs/inode.c:358 inc_nlink+0x32/0x40 >>> [ 3189.246979] Call Trace: >>> [ 3189.248707] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x2d6/0x440 [f2fs] >>> [ 3189.251399] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x162/0x8c0 [f2fs] >>> [ 3189.254010] f2fs_add_dentry+0x69/0xe0 [f2fs] >>> [ 3189.256353] f2fs_do_add_link+0xc5/0x100 [f2fs] >>> [ 3189.258774] f2fs_rename2+0xabf/0x1010 [f2fs] >>> [ 3189.261079] vfs_rename+0x3f8/0xaa0 >>> [ 3189.263056] ? tomoyo_path_rename+0x44/0x60 >>> [ 3189.265283] ? do_renameat2+0x49b/0x550 >>> [ 3189.267324] do_renameat2+0x49b/0x550 >>> [ 3189.269316] __x64_sys_renameat2+0x20/0x30 >>> [ 3189.271441] do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x230 >>> [ 3189.273410] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe >>> [ 3189.275848] RIP: 0033:0x7f270b4d9a49 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim >>> --- >>> fs/f2fs/namei.c | 27 +++++++++++++-------------- >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c >>> index a1c507b0b4ac..5d9584281935 100644 >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c >>> @@ -797,6 +797,7 @@ static int __f2fs_tmpfile(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, >>> >>> if (whiteout) { >>> f2fs_i_links_write(inode, false); >>> + inode->i_state |= I_LINKABLE; >>> *whiteout = inode; >>> } else { >>> d_tmpfile(dentry, inode); >>> @@ -867,6 +868,12 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >>> F2FS_I(old_dentry->d_inode)->i_projid))) >>> return -EXDEV; >>> >>> + if (flags & RENAME_WHITEOUT) { >>> + err = f2fs_create_whiteout(old_dir, &whiteout); >>> + if (err) >>> + return err; >>> + } >> >> To record quota info correctly, we need to create whiteout inode after >> dquot_initialize(old_dir)? > > __f2fs_tmpfile() will do it. Okay. Any comments on below question? > >> >>> + >>> err = dquot_initialize(old_dir); >>> if (err) >>> goto out; >>> @@ -898,17 +905,11 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >>> } >>> } >>> >>> - if (flags & RENAME_WHITEOUT) { >>> - err = f2fs_create_whiteout(old_dir, &whiteout); >>> - if (err) >>> - goto out_dir; >>> - } >>> - >>> if (new_inode) { >>> >>> err = -ENOTEMPTY; >>> if (old_dir_entry && !f2fs_empty_dir(new_inode)) >>> - goto out_whiteout; >>> + goto out_dir; >>> >>> err = -ENOENT; >>> new_entry = f2fs_find_entry(new_dir, &new_dentry->d_name, >>> @@ -916,7 +917,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >>> if (!new_entry) { >>> if (IS_ERR(new_page)) >>> err = PTR_ERR(new_page); >>> - goto out_whiteout; >>> + goto out_dir; >>> } >>> >>> f2fs_balance_fs(sbi, true); >>> @@ -948,7 +949,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >>> err = f2fs_add_link(new_dentry, old_inode); >>> if (err) { >>> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi); >>> - goto out_whiteout; >>> + goto out_dir; >>> } >>> >>> if (old_dir_entry) >>> @@ -972,7 +973,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >>> if (IS_ERR(old_page)) >>> err = PTR_ERR(old_page); >>> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi); >>> - goto out_whiteout; >>> + goto out_dir; >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> @@ -991,7 +992,6 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >>> f2fs_delete_entry(old_entry, old_page, old_dir, NULL); >>> >>> if (whiteout) { >>> - whiteout->i_state |= I_LINKABLE; >>> set_inode_flag(whiteout, FI_INC_LINK); >>> err = f2fs_add_link(old_dentry, whiteout); >> >> [ 3189.256353] f2fs_do_add_link+0xc5/0x100 [f2fs] >> [ 3189.258774] f2fs_rename2+0xabf/0x1010 [f2fs] >> >> Does the call stack point here? if so, we have set I_LINKABLE before >> f2fs_add_link(), why the warning still be triggered? Am I missing something? Thanks, >> >> Thanks, >> >>> if (err) >>> @@ -1027,15 +1027,14 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >>> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi); >>> if (new_page) >>> f2fs_put_page(new_page, 0); >>> -out_whiteout: >>> - if (whiteout) >>> - iput(whiteout); >>> out_dir: >>> if (old_dir_entry) >>> f2fs_put_page(old_dir_page, 0); >>> out_old: >>> f2fs_put_page(old_page, 0); >>> out: >>> + if (whiteout) >>> + iput(whiteout); >>> return err; >>> } >>> >>> > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel