> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 05:09:20PM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 03:43:52PM +0800, cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> From: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> An dir nlinks overflow which down form 0 to 0xffffffff, cause the > > > >> directory to become unusable until the next xfs_repair run. > > > > Hmmm. How does this ever happen? > > > > IMO, if it does happen, we need to fix whatever bug that causes it > > > > to happen, not issue a warning and do nothing about the fact we > > > > just hit a corrupt inode state... > > > Yes, I'm very agree with your opinion. But I don't know how it happened, > > > and how to reproduce it. > > > > Wait, is this the result of a customer problem? Or static analysis? It's a customer problem. > > > > > >> Introduce protection for drop nlink to reduce the impact of this. > > > >> And produce a warning for directory nlink error during remove. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> --- > > > >> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > > > >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > > > >> index 9e62cc5..536dbe4 100644 > > > >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > > > >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > > > >> @@ -919,6 +919,15 @@ STATIC int xfs_iunlink_remove(struct xfs_trans *tp, struct xfs_perag *pag, > > > > I'm not sure why your diff program thinks this hunk is from > > xfs_iunlink_remove, seeing as the line numbers of the chunk point to > > xfs_droplink. Maybe that's what's going on in this part of the thread? > Yes. > I don't expect patches to be mangled like this - I generally > take the hunk prefix to indicate what code is being modified when > reading patches, not expecting that the hunk is modifying code over > a thousand lines prior to the function in the prefix... > So, yeah, something went very wrong with the generation of this > patch... > -Dave. It may be a problem with the git version. After using 2.18.1 instead of 1.8.3.1, the patch looks normal. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Wait a second - this code doesn't match an upstream kernel. What > > > kernel did you make this patch against? > > It's kernel mainline linux-6.5-rc7 > ....and what did you use to generate the patch? git diff? > > --D It's git format-patch git version 1.8.3.1
