On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:36:03AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:04:44PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Way back when we established inode block-map redo log items, it was
> > discovered that we needed to prevent the VFS from evicting inodes during
> > log recovery because any given inode might be have bmap redo items to
> > replay even if the inode has no link count and is ultimately deleted,
> > and any eviction of an unlinked inode causes the inode to be truncated
> > and freed too early.
> >
> > To make this possible, we set MS_ACTIVE so that inodes would not be torn
> > down immediately upon release. Unfortunately, this also results in the
> > quota inodes not being released at all if a later part of the mount
> > process should fail, because we never reclaim the inodes. So, clear
> > MS_ACTIVE immediately after we finish the log recovery so that the quota
> > inodes will be torn down properly if we abort the mount.
> >
> > Fixes: 17c12bcd30 ("xfs: when replaying bmap operations, don't let unlinked inodes get reaped")
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > index 40d4e8b..d463ab3 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > @@ -949,7 +949,9 @@ xfs_mountfs(
> > * iput to behave like they do for an active filesystem.
> > * xfs_fs_drop_inode needs to be able to prevent the deletion
> > * of inodes before we're done replaying log items on those
> > - * inodes.
> > + * inodes. Turn it off immediately after xfs_log_mount_finish
> > + * so that we don't leak the quota inodes if subsequent mount
> > + * activities fail.
> > */
> > mp->m_super->s_flags |= MS_ACTIVE;
> >
> > @@ -959,6 +961,7 @@ xfs_mountfs(
> > * read in.
> > */
> > error = xfs_log_mount_finish(mp);
> > + mp->m_super->s_flags &= ~MS_ACTIVE;
>
> Just an aesthetic nit, but could we combine these two above hunks and
> the associated comments so the intent is very obvious? E.g., so it looks
> something like this:
>
> /*
> * Set MS_ACTIVE around log recovery ...
> */
> mp->m_super->s_flags |= MS_ACTIVE;
> error = xfs_log_mount_finish(mp);
> mp->m_super->s_flags &= ~MS_ACTIVE;
> ...
Yes, that's fine.
--D
>
> Otherwise this looks fine:
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > if (error) {
> > xfs_warn(mp, "log mount finish failed");
> > goto out_rtunmount;
> > @@ -1028,7 +1031,6 @@ xfs_mountfs(
> > out_quota:
> > xfs_qm_unmount_quotas(mp);
> > out_rtunmount:
> > - mp->m_super->s_flags &= ~MS_ACTIVE;
> > xfs_rtunmount_inodes(mp);
> > out_rele_rip:
> > IRELE(rip);
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
