| Message ID | CAJSVwFM3vq9wsq0Mn5L1bh-WHoP1g3VMJAOg_ruavZFednsjVw@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Forrest Liu <forrestl@synology.com> wrote: > When depth of extent tree is greater than 1, logical start value > of interior node didn't updated correctly in ext4_ext_rm_idx. > > Signed-off-by: Forrest Liu <forrestl@synology.com> > --- Patch seems ok to me. Reviewed-by: Ashish Sangwan <ashishsangwan2@gmail.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:32:22PM +0800, Forrest Liu wrote: > When depth of extent tree is greater than 1, logical start value > of interior node didn't updated correctly in ext4_ext_rm_idx. > > Signed-off-by: Forrest Liu <forrestl@synology.com> Applied. BTW, your reproduction case also results in a file system which isn't noticed as being broken by e2fsck. Eric's patch "e2fsck: Fix incorrect interior node logical start values" fixes e2fsck so it handles this. Unfortunately applying his patch seems to uncover a bug in e2fsck when clearing a bad extent node (f_extent_bad_node) which we need to fix so the regression test suite is passing. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2012/12/20 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:32:22PM +0800, Forrest Liu wrote: >> When depth of extent tree is greater than 1, logical start value >> of interior node didn't updated correctly in ext4_ext_rm_idx. >> >> Signed-off-by: Forrest Liu <forrestl@synology.com> > > Applied. > > BTW, your reproduction case also results in a file system which isn't > noticed as being broken by e2fsck. Eric's patch "e2fsck: Fix > incorrect interior node logical start values" fixes e2fsck so it > handles this. Unfortunately applying his patch seems to uncover a bug > in e2fsck when clearing a bad extent node (f_extent_bad_node) which we > need to fix so the regression test suite is passing. > > - Ted Hi Ted, I will help to find out the problem in e2fsck. Thanks, Forrest -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:11:28PM +0800, Forrest Liu wrote: > Hi Ted, > I will help to find out the problem in e2fsck. Thanks for the offer, but I think I've found the problem and have the following set of patches (versus the maint branch) to fix the problem. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c index d3dd618..496952e 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c @@ -2190,13 +2190,14 @@ errout: * removes index from the index block. */ static int ext4_ext_rm_idx(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, - struct ext4_ext_path *path) + struct ext4_ext_path *path, int depth) { int err; ext4_fsblk_t leaf; /* free index block */ - path--; + depth--; + path = path + depth; leaf = ext4_idx_pblock(path->p_idx); if (unlikely(path->p_hdr->eh_entries == 0)) { EXT4_ERROR_INODE(inode, "path->p_hdr->eh_entries == 0"); @@ -2221,6 +2222,19 @@ static int ext4_ext_rm_idx(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, ext4_free_blocks(handle, inode, NULL, leaf, 1, EXT4_FREE_BLOCKS_METADATA | EXT4_FREE_BLOCKS_FORGET); + + while (--depth >= 0) { + if (path->p_idx != EXT_FIRST_INDEX(path->p_hdr)) + break; + path--; + err = ext4_ext_get_access(handle, inode, path); + if (err) + break; + path->p_idx->ei_block = (path+1)->p_idx->ei_block; + err = ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path); + if (err) + break; + } return err; }
When depth of extent tree is greater than 1, logical start value of interior node didn't updated correctly in ext4_ext_rm_idx. Signed-off-by: Forrest Liu <forrestl@synology.com> --- fs/ext4/extents.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) @@ -2557,7 +2571,7 @@ ext4_ext_rm_leaf(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, /* if this leaf is free, then we should * remove it from index block above */ if (err == 0 && eh->eh_entries == 0 && path[depth].p_bh != NULL) - err = ext4_ext_rm_idx(handle, inode, path + depth); + err = ext4_ext_rm_idx(handle, inode, path, depth); out: return err; @@ -2760,7 +2774,7 @@ again: /* index is empty, remove it; * handle must be already prepared by the * truncatei_leaf() */ - err = ext4_ext_rm_idx(handle, inode, path + i); + err = ext4_ext_rm_idx(handle, inode, path, i); } /* root level has p_bh == NULL, brelse() eats this */ brelse(path[i].p_bh);