On Jun 28, 2022, at 10:00 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> When doing an online resize, the on-disk superblock on-disk wasn't
> updated. This means that when the file system is unmounted and
> remounted, and the on-disk overhead value is non-zero, this would
> result in the results of statfs(2) to be incorrect.
>
> This was partially fixed by Commits 10b01ee92df5 ("ext4: fix overhead
> calculation to account for the reserved gdt blocks"), 85d825dbf489
> ("ext4: force overhead calculation if the s_overhead_cluster makes no
> sense"), and eb7054212eac ("ext4: update the cached overhead value in
> the superblock").
Would these be better referenced by Fixes: labels?
> However, since it was too expensive to forcibly recalculate the
> overhead for bigalloc file systems at every mount, this didn't fix the
> problem for bigalloc file systems. This commit should address the
> problem when resizing file systems with the bigalloc feature enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ext4/resize.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/resize.c b/fs/ext4/resize.c
> index 8b70a4701293..e5c2713aa11a 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/resize.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/resize.c
> @@ -1484,6 +1484,7 @@ static void ext4_update_super(struct super_block *sb,
> * Update the fs overhead information
> */
> ext4_calculate_overhead(sb);
> + es->s_overhead_clusters = cpu_to_le32(sbi->s_overhead);
>
> if (test_opt(sb, DEBUG))
> printk(KERN_DEBUG "EXT4-fs: added group %u:"
> --
> 2.31.0
>
Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
