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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 3F9B2C433FF for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:21 +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 0913D206DF for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:20 +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="Fcc90R5s"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="UtcgWkb0" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0913D206DF 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-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hx90q-0004rC-Ga; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:20 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hx90p-0004r5-5w for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:19 +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:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:CC:Subject:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FGQXMbxiqUI1xZ3Nq4AUE8u/GaLNExJNLsuQ3ajptCE=; b=Fcc90R5s+QL/f6dP0fnWzzYPr+ xEa+cAbWe6BJegKgw5y2vQ7S2uNvRX5nXztjt0WMwzZXMV8Ir06SnHo8Ggm7o77P862PrpyTLKnKq LtWs8E3JI3nSiMtCbh+geS7U3VtTemGO+SiAGTd/fI/Ih/qj5Ovtw2EXWKXLnTt6orog=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:CC: Subject:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post: List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FGQXMbxiqUI1xZ3Nq4AUE8u/GaLNExJNLsuQ3ajptCE=; b=U tcgWkb0ZHTm5SY6gUBV0kRrRdJ5uj6ug4oNazJjXtFFMnHAWw/3vgHOYV/DbjIkWOGIZlkmFurF4F gf/A+HfOIPVzeEfa0GuhDMYMTl44U06yf/zFpZ8dsN4mfemBz1WevAay+lNjD48gIqyn+iVGAQ93J pqNUpsjPR5Sr3xVg=; Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190] helo=huawei.com) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1hx90m-000dK3-Vn for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:01:19 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS413-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 46AEF25BA7D14820FE4B; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:07 +0800 To: Jaegeuk Kim From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <3bc8584e-651c-9578-c25a-40c60b5cfbdb@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1hx90m-000dK3-Vn Subject: [f2fs-dev] f2fs_symlink bug 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-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 Hi Jaegeuk, In por_fsstress testcase, fsck reports below inconsistent status, I found one path can cause this case. [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1002) --> Symlink: recover 0x1425 with i_size=4096 [ASSERT] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1030) --> ino: 0x1425 chksum:0x6983d47, but calculated one is: 0xdb284b35 [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1036) --> ino: 0x1425 recover, i_inode_checksum= 0x6983d47 -> 0xdb284b35 - f2fs_symlink - page_symlink failed -> f2fs_write_failed() will truncate size to zero - f2fs_unlink failed -> symlink inode w/o data will remain in fs Not sure, but one choice of fix is to treat symlink as fs meta like we did for directory, so that checkpoint can take care of all data/node of symlink, any thoughts? _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel