Re: [patch 069/283] ext3: handle corrupted orphan list at mount

Mike Snitzer
2008-07-25T18:33:36Z

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:02 AM, <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> From: "Duane Griffin" <duaneg@dghda.com>
>
> If the orphan node list includes valid, untruncatable nodes with nlink > 0
> the ext3_orphan_cleanup loop which attempts to delete them will not do so,
> causing it to loop forever. Fix by checking for such nodes in the
> ext3_orphan_get function.
>
> This patch fixes the second case (image hdb.20000009.softlockup.gz)
> reported in http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10882.
>
> [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]
> [akpm@linux-foundation.org: printk warning fix]
> Signed-off-by: Duane Griffin <duaneg@dghda.com>
> Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

> diff -puN fs/ext3/inode.c~ext3-handle-corrupted-orphan-list-at-mount fs/ext3/inode.c
> --- a/fs/ext3/inode.c~ext3-handle-corrupted-orphan-list-at-mount
> +++ a/fs/ext3/inode.c
> @@ -2253,6 +2253,19 @@ static void ext3_free_branches(handle_t
> }
> }
>
> +int ext3_can_truncate(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + if (IS_APPEND(inode) || IS_IMMUTABLE(inode))
> + return 0;
> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> + return 1;
> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
> + return 1;
> + if (S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode))
> + return !ext3_inode_is_fast_symlink(inode);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * ext3_truncate()
> *
> @@ -2297,12 +2310,7 @@ void ext3_truncate(struct inode *inode)
> unsigned blocksize = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize;
> struct page *page;
>
> - if (!(S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) || S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) ||
> - S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode)))
> - return;
> - if (ext3_inode_is_fast_symlink(inode))
> - return;
> - if (IS_APPEND(inode) || IS_IMMUTABLE(inode))
> + if (!ext3_can_truncate(inode))
> return;

I may be missing something here but doesn't the above change the logic
that was used in ext3_truncate for the S_ISDIR and S_ISLNK cases?

Before ext3_truncate would be short-circuited if S_ISDIR or S_ISLNK,
now it won't... is that intended?