Re: [PATCH V2] e2fsck: fix multiply-claimed block quota accounting when deleting files

[Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>]

* Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>:
> 
> > On May 11, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > As e2fsck processes each file in pass1, the actual file system quota is
> > increased by the number of blocks discovered in the file.  This can
> > include both non-multiply-claimed and multiply-claimed blocks, if the
> > latter exist.  However, if a file containing multiply-claimed blocks
> > is then deleted in pass1b, those blocks are not taken into account when
> > decreasing the actual quota.  In this case, the new quota values written
> > to the file system by e2fsck overstate the space actually consumed.
> > And, e2fsck must be run twice on the file system to fully correct
> > quota.
> > 
> > Fix this by counting multiply-claimed blocks as a debit to quota when
> > deleting files in pass1b.
> > 
> > [V2] Correct a dangling else bug in the original patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
> 
> > ---
> > e2fsck/pass1b.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1b.c b/e2fsck/pass1b.c
> > index b40f026..d22cffd 100644
> > --- a/e2fsck/pass1b.c
> > +++ b/e2fsck/pass1b.c
> > @@ -637,9 +637,11 @@ static int delete_file_block(ext2_filsys fs,
> > 	if (ext2fs_test_block_bitmap2(ctx->block_dup_map, *block_nr)) {
> > 		n = dict_lookup(&clstr_dict, INT_TO_VOIDPTR(c));
> > 		if (n) {
> > -			p = (struct dup_cluster *) dnode_get(n);
> > -			if (lc != pb->cur_cluster)
> > +			if (lc != pb->cur_cluster) {
> > +				p = (struct dup_cluster *) dnode_get(n);
> > 				decrement_badcount(ctx, *block_nr, p);
> > +				pb->dup_blocks++;
> > +			}
> > 		} else
> > 			com_err("delete_file_block", 0,
> > 			    _("internal error: can't find dup_blk for %llu\n"),
> 
> My preference would be to have {} around the else clause as well, and I
> believe that checkpatch.pl agrees "braces {} should be used on all arms
> of this statement".  That said, this is a pre-existing condition and is
> only code style, while your patch fixes a real bug.
> 

Yes, I'd noticed that.  The bug I'd inadvertently created came from a quick
attempt to address the coding standard problem by adjusting the previous
clause.  I'm going to be modifying this same function again shortly with
more patches (other bugs) - I'll clean up the braces for this else clause
then.

Thanks,
Eric