On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Miklos, > > This is it. > All done on my end, so unless you have any rejects that you want me > to fix, you may start mangling. > > I've added another xfstest for nlink accounting and may add another > one that mangles with lower hardlinks to get negative overlay nlink. > It's a behavior I observed with lower/upper stress xfstest overlay/019 > and fixed in patch 25. FYI1: I wrote that test and pushed to my xfstests dev branch. The test found another corner case of lower hardlinks mangling. I fixed that other case and re-posted patch 25 and force pushed ovl-hardlinks.v4. FYI2: Occasionally, I get the WARN_ON from drop_nlink() when running the generic xfstest fsstress test generic/013: generic/013 [16:50:00]run fstests generic/013 at 2017-06-21 16:50:00 ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 10920 at /home/amir/build/src/linux/fs/inode.c:282 drop_nlink+0x10/0x29 Call Trace: ovl_do_remove.part.2+0x353/0x3bd ovl_unlink+0x23/0x26 vfs_unlink+0xde/0x17d do_unlinkat+0x10a/0x215 Since this is not an overlay specific test, all fsstress operation are on pure upper, so I'm not sure how my patches could break this test case. Because it happens rarely, its going to take me time to bisect the problem. My only immediate suspect is "ovl: fix nlink leak in ovl_rename()", which is a generic change that drops nlink. Could you please take a closer look at this patch to see if I missed something. I will try to reproduce the issue with just this one patch. Thanks, Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
