xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 10/11] xfs: fix incorrect remote symlink block count

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] xfs: fix incorrect remote symlink block count
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:41:44 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130524203910.GX20028@xxxxxxx>
References: <1369123330-9579-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1369123330-9579-11-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130524203633.GW20028@xxxxxxx> <20130524203910.GX20028@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>