On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:43:57AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> It is possible that unlinked inode enters ext4_setattr() (e.g. if
> somebody calls ftruncate(2) on unlinked but still open file). In such
> case we should not delete the inode from the orphan list if truncate
> fails. Note that this is mostly a theoretical concern as filesystem is
> corrupted if we reach this path anyway but let's be consistent in our
> orphan handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index 9bcb7f2b86dd..c7f77c643008 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -5625,7 +5625,7 @@ int ext4_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, struct iattr *attr)
> up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
> ext4_journal_stop(handle);
> if (error) {
> - if (orphan)
> + if (orphan && inode->i_nlink)
> ext4_orphan_del(NULL, inode);
NIT: While ext4_orphan_del() can be called even if the inode was not on the
orphan list it kind of tripped me up to see this called even if
ext4_orphan_add() fails...
But considering how ext4_orphan_del() works:
Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> goto err_out;
> }
> --
> 2.16.4
>
