On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Darrick J. Wong
<darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:24:42PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 06:08:06PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:35 AM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:27:23AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Darrick J. Wong
>> > >> <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 01:07:36PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Darrick J. Wong
>> > >> >> <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> >> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:44:29AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> > >> >> >> Commit 66f364649d870 ("xfs: remove if_rdev") moved storing of rdev
>> > >> >> >> value for special inodes to VFS inodes, but forgot to preserve the
>> > >> >> >> value of i_rdev when recycling a reclaimable xfs_inode.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> This was detected by xfstest overlay/017 with inodex=on mount option
>> > >> >> >> and xfs base fs. The test does a lookup of overlay chardev and blockdev
>> > >> >> >> right after drop caches.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Overlayfs inodes hold a reference on underlying xfs inodes when mount
>> > >> >> >> option index=on is configured. If drop caches reclaim xfs inodes, before
>> > >> >> >> it relclaims overlayfs inodes, that can sometimes leave a reclaimable xfs
>> > >> >> >> inode and that test hits that case quite often.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> When that happens, the xfs inode cache remains broken (zere i_rdev)
>> > >> >> >> until the next cycle mount or drop caches.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Fixes: 66f364649d870 ("xfs: remove if_rdev")
>> > >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Looks ok,
>> > >> >> > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I recon that now we should now also strap:
>> > >> >> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> #v4.15
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Can I assume, you'll add it on apply?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I'll do a proper backport of this and a couple other critical cow
>> > >> > fixes after I get the 4.16 stuff merged.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> I am not sure what "proper backport" means in the context of
>> > >> this patch.
>> > >> This is a v4.15-rc1 regression fix that is based on v4.15-rc8.
>> > >> It applied cleanly on v4.15.
>> > >
>> > > I meant the other things that went into 4.16, like the reflink quota
>> > > fixes, the directio corruption problems, etc. Make a branch, add the
>> > > necessary fixes, run xfstests to make sure it all still works, etc.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Hi Amir, could you do this step ?
>
Will do.
> As far as the code patch goes it's probably fine for stable, but I don't
> want patches going to stable that have not been run through xfstests to
> look for regressions. If the patch doesn't increase the number of
> xfstests failures then it's ready to go to 4.15.y.
>
Thanks,
Amir.
--
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
