On 2021/8/19 18:26, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 19-08-21 14:57:03, Zhang Yi wrote: >> In ext4_inode_blocks_set(), huge_file feature should exist when setting >> i_blocks beyond a 32 bit variable could be represented, return EFBIG if >> not. This error should never happen in theory since sb->s_maxbytes should >> not have allowed this, and we have already init sb->s_maxbytes according >> to this feature in ext4_fill_super(). So switch to use WARN_ON_ONCE >> instead. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > One comment below: > >> @@ -4918,10 +4918,15 @@ static int ext4_inode_blocks_set(handle_t *handle, >> raw_inode->i_blocks_lo = cpu_to_le32(i_blocks); >> raw_inode->i_blocks_high = 0; >> ext4_clear_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_HUGE_FILE); >> - return 0; >> + return; >> } >> - if (!ext4_has_feature_huge_file(sb)) >> - return -EFBIG; >> + >> + /* >> + * This should never happen since sb->s_maxbytes should not have >> + * allowed this, which was set according to the huge_file feature >> + * in ext4_fill_super(). >> + */ >> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!ext4_has_feature_huge_file(sb)); > > Thinking about this a bit more, this could also happen due to fs > corruption. So we probably need to call ext4_error_inode() here instead of > WARN_ON_ONCE(). Also it will result in properly marking fs as having > errors. But since we hold i_raw_lock at this call site we need to > keep the error bail out from ext4_inode_blocks_set() and in > ext4_do_update_inode() finish updating inode and then call > ext4_error_inode() after dropping i_raw_lock. > Yes, make sense, ext4_error_inode() is more reasonable. Thanks, Yi.
