On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:04:11PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 05:50:38PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Christoph noticed that the xfs_attr_is_leaf in xfs_attr_get_ilocked can > > access the incore extent tree of the attr fork, but nothing in the > > xfs_attr_get path guarantees that the incore tree is actually loaded. > > > > Most of the time it is, but seeing as xfs_attr_is_leaf ignores the > > return value of xfs_iext_get_extent I guess we've been making choices > > based on random stack contents and nobody's complained? > > Yes, I'm kinda puzzled. I suspect that most of the time we get lucky and *someone* has read in the attr fork or created it or whatever. > Note that the dir code actually reads the extents in their > is_leaf/is_block helpers. But given how the attr code is structured > that would thread through a lot of code so it might not be worth it. <nod> But it would be more consistent... > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Thanks! --D
