On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:16:00PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:45 AM yangerkun <yangerkun@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Run generic/461 with ext4 upper/lower layer sometimes may trigger the
> > > bug as below(linux 4.19):
> > >
> > > [ 551.001349] overlayfs: failed to get metacopy (-5)
> > > [ 551.003464] overlayfs: failed to get inode (-5)
> > > [ 551.004243] overlayfs: cleanup of 'd44/fd51' failed (-5)
> > > [ 551.004941] overlayfs: failed to get origin (-5)
> > > [ 551.005199] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > [ 551.006697] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 24674 at fs/inode.c:1528 iput+0x33b/0x400
> > > ...
> > > [ 551.027219] Call Trace:
> > > [ 551.027623] ovl_create_object+0x13f/0x170
> > > [ 551.028268] ovl_create+0x27/0x30
> > > [ 551.028799] path_openat+0x1a35/0x1ea0
> > > [ 551.029377] do_filp_open+0xad/0x160
> > > [ 551.029944] ? vfs_writev+0xe9/0x170
> > > [ 551.030499] ? page_counter_try_charge+0x77/0x120
> > > [ 551.031245] ? __alloc_fd+0x160/0x2a0
> > > [ 551.031832] ? do_sys_open+0x189/0x340
> > > [ 551.032417] ? get_unused_fd_flags+0x34/0x40
> > > [ 551.033081] do_sys_open+0x189/0x340
> > > [ 551.033632] __x64_sys_creat+0x24/0x30
> > > [ 551.034219] do_syscall_64+0xd5/0x430
> > > [ 551.034800] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > > ...
> > > [ 556.107515] BUG: Dentry 000000006bc1d73f{i=4129c,n=fd51} still in use (-1) [unmount of ext4 sdb]
> > > [ 556.108946] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > [ 556.109686] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 24682 at fs/dcache.c:1557 umount_check+0x95/0xc0
> > > [ 556.130343] d_walk+0x10d/0x430
> > > [ 556.130832] do_one_tree+0x30/0x60
> > > [ 556.131365] shrink_dcache_for_umount+0x38/0xe0
> > > [ 556.132063] generic_shutdown_super+0x2e/0x1c0
> > > [ 556.132747] kill_block_super+0x29/0x80
> > > [ 556.133338] deactivate_locked_super+0x7a/0x100
> > > [ 556.134034] deactivate_super+0x9d/0xb0
> > > [ 556.134627] cleanup_mnt+0x67/0x100
> > > [ 556.135173] __cleanup_mnt+0x16/0x20
> > > [ 556.135731] task_work_run+0xdb/0x110
> > > [ 556.136306] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x197/0x1b0
> > > [ 556.136991] do_syscall_64+0x3ce/0x430
> > > [ 556.137571] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > > ...
> > > [ 556.378140] VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of sdb. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day...
> > >
> > > After check the code, there may some bug need to fix:
> > > 1. We need to call iput once ovl_check_metacopy_xattr fail.
> > > 2. We need to call unlock_new_inode or the above iput(also with iput in
> > > ovl_create_object) will trigger the a WARN_ON since the I_NEW still
> > > exists.
> > > 3. We should move the init for upperdentry to the place below
> > > ovl_check_metacopy_xattr. Or the dentry reference will decrease to
> > > -1(error path in ovl_create_upper will inc, ovl_destroy_inode too).
> > >
> >
> > OR we don't check metacopy xattr in ovl_get_inode().
> >
> > In ovl_lookup() we already checked metacopy xattr.
> > No reason to check it again in this subtle context.
> >
> > In ovl_lookup() can store value of upper metacopy and after we get
> > the inode, set the OVL_UPPERDATA inode flag according to
> > upperdentry && !uppermetacopy.
> >
> > That would be consistent with ovl_obtain_alias() which sets the
> > OVL_UPPERDATA inode flag after getting the inode.
>
> Hi Amir,
>
> This patch implements what you are suggesting. Compile tested only.
> Does this look ok?
>
It looks correct.
> May be I don't need to split it up in lmetacopy and umetacopy. Ideally,
> lookup in lower layers should stop if an upper regular file is not
> metacopy. IOW, (upperdentry && !metacopy) might be sufficient check.
> Will look closely if this patch looks fine.
>
I would stick uppermetacopy much like upperredirect and upperopaque.
This test:
if (metacopy) {
/*
* Found a metacopy dentry but did not find corresponding
* data dentry
*/
if (d.metacopy) {
Is equivalent to if (d.metacopy) {
I am not sure about:
if (ctr && (!upperdentry || (!d.is_dir && !metacopy)))
origin = stack[0].dentry;
I will let you figure it out, but it feels like it is actually testing
!uppermetacopy
Thanks,
Amir.
