On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > This patch is not to blame, nor are any of the other patches. The problem goes back at least as far as kernel v4.10. -- 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
