On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:39:10PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:36:33PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:02:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When CRCs are enabled, the number of blocks needed to hold a remote
> > > symlink on a 1k block size filesystem may be 2 instead of 1. The
> > > transaction reservation for the allocated bloks was not taking this
> > blocks
> > > into account and only allocating one block. hence when trying to
> > H
> >
> > fixed.
> >
> > > read or invalidate such symlinks, we are mapping a hole where there
> > > should be a block and things go bad at that point.
> > >
> > > Fix the reservation to use the correct block count, clean up the
> > > block count calculation similar to the remote attribute calculation,
> > > and add a debug guard to detect when we don't write the entire
> > > symlink to disk.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
> > > @@ -525,9 +518,7 @@ xfs_symlink(
> > > bp->b_ops = &xfs_symlink_buf_ops;
> > >
> > > byte_cnt = XFS_SYMLINK_BUF_SPACE(mp, byte_cnt);
> > > - if (pathlen < byte_cnt) {
> > > - byte_cnt = pathlen;
> > > - }
> > > + byte_cnt = min(byte_cnt, pathlen);
> >
> > The min is necessary due since we can have up to three extents in here,
> > according to the comment above the define for XFS_SYMLINK_MAPS. So byte_cnt
> > can be less than pathlen.
>
> D'oh. I wanted to point out that it looks like this issue with 'min' here
> should be causing problems with symlinks on non-crc enabled filesystems.
What issue might that be? The result is identical in either case, I
just converted this to min to be more concise and consistent with
the same code loops in the remote attr copyin/copyout.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
