* Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > On May 11, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > ---
> > 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
