On Tue 21-05-19 11:13:49, Ira Weiny wrote:
> 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>
Yes, calling ext4_orphan_del() twice is harmless. You're right we just
shouldn't set 'orphan = 1' if ext4_orphan_add() fails but that's
independent cleanup we could do. Thanks for your review!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
