Jaegeuk, Chao, any comment on this? It really looks like a filesystem
corruption issue in f2fs when whiteouts are used...
Honza
On Tue 17-10-23 06:50:40, Al Viro wrote:
> [f2fs folks Cc'd]
>
> There's something very odd in f2fs_rename();
> this:
> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(old_inode)->i_sem);
> if (!old_dir_entry || whiteout)
> file_lost_pino(old_inode);
> else
> /* adjust dir's i_pino to pass fsck check */
> f2fs_i_pino_write(old_inode, new_dir->i_ino);
> f2fs_up_write(&F2FS_I(old_inode)->i_sem);
> and this:
> if (old_dir != new_dir && !whiteout)
> f2fs_set_link(old_inode, old_dir_entry,
> old_dir_page, new_dir);
> else
> f2fs_put_page(old_dir_page, 0);
> The latter really stinks, especially considering
> struct dentry *f2fs_get_parent(struct dentry *child)
> {
> struct page *page;
> unsigned long ino = f2fs_inode_by_name(d_inode(child), &dotdot_name, &page);
>
> if (!ino) {
> if (IS_ERR(page))
> return ERR_CAST(page);
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> }
> return d_obtain_alias(f2fs_iget(child->d_sb, ino));
> }
>
> You want correct inumber in the ".." link. And cross-directory
> rename does move the source to new parent, even if you'd been asked
> to leave a whiteout in the old place.
>
> Why is that stuff conditional on whiteout? AFAICS, that went into the
> tree in the same commit that added RENAME_WHITEOUT support on f2fs,
> mentioning "For now, we just try to follow the way that xfs/ext4 use"
> in commit message. But ext4 does *NOT* do anything of that sort -
> at the time of that commit the relevant piece had been
> if (old.dir_bh) {
> retval = ext4_rename_dir_finish(handle, &old, new.dir->i_ino);
> and old.dir_bh is set by
> retval = ext4_rename_dir_prepare(handle, &old);
> a few lines prior, which is not conditional upon the whiteout.
>
> What am I missing there?
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
