On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:52:51PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 4/22/13 7:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:59:54PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 4/15/13 6:14 PM, Brian Foster wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the data in the previous thread: > >>> > >>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00327.html > >>> > >>> I'm spinning off a new thread specifically for this because the original > >>> thread is already too large and scattered to track. As Eric stated, > >>> please try to keep data contained in as few messages as possible. > >>> > >> > >> Well, it's always simple in the end. It just took a lot of debugging > >> to figure out what was happening - we do appreciate your help with that! > >> > >> We were able to create a local reproducer, and it looks like > >> this patch fixes things: > >> > >> commit aae8a97d3ec30788790d1720b71d76fd8eb44b73 > >> Author: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Sat Jan 29 18:43:27 2011 +0530 > >> > >> fs: Don't allow to create hardlink for deleted file > > > > Good find Eric - great work on the reproducer script. > > > > FWIW, can you confirm that a debug kernel assert fails > > with a non-zero link count in xfs_bumplink() with your test case? > > > > int > > xfs_bumplink( > > xfs_trans_t *tp, > > xfs_inode_t *ip) > > { > > xfs_trans_ichgtime(tp, ip, XFS_ICHGTIME_CHG); > > > >>>>>> ASSERT(ip->i_d.di_nlink > 0); > > Yep, it does, I put a printk in there when I was testing > and it fired. > > Guess we should have tested a debug xfs right off the bat ;) Perhaps, but that may have changed the timing sufficiently to make the race go away. What we really needed was a way to just turn the assert into a WARN_ON() without all the other debug code like we've previously talked about. So, rather than talk about it again, I posted patches to do this.... > > ip->i_d.di_nlink++; > > inc_nlink(VFS_I(ip)); > > > > If it does, we should consider this a in-memory corruption case and > > return and trigger a shutdown here.... > > I suppose that makes sense, it'd be a much less cryptic failure for > something that will fail soon anyway. Exactly. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
