On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:02 AM, <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: "Duane Griffin" <duaneg@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: coding-style fixes] >> [akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: printk warning fix] >> Signed-off-by: Duane Griffin <duaneg@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> 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? Gah, I mistakenly read it as only being !S_ISDIR (I missed the fact that it was !S_ISREG, !S_ISDIR, or !S_ISLNK). And after Duane's change that logic is maintained... and more readable! Sorry for the noise. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
