xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: v2 fix node forward in xfs_node_toosmall

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: v2 fix node forward in xfs_node_toosmall
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:59:53 -0500
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5241CD70.7050800@xxxxxxx>
References: <20130920220519.585903357@xxxxxxx> <20130923171911.273669684@xxxxxxx> <20130923234819.GW9901@dastard> <5241CD70.7050800@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:35:44PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 09/23/13 18:48, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:18:58PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>Commit f5ea1100 cleans up the disk to host conversions for
> >>node directory entries, but because a variable is reused in
> >>xfs_node_toosmall() the next node is not correctly found.
> >>If the original node is small enough (<= 3/8 of the node size),
> >>this change may incorrectly cause a node collapse when it should
> >>not.
> >
> >The comment about the size of the node triggering a collapse is
> >irrelevant - nodes always collapse at that given size. What this
> >doesn't tell us is why the crash occurs - "the next node is not
> >correctly found" is not particularly obvious, and would require
> >quite a bit of code reading to work out from first principles a
> >couple of years down the track.
> >
> >The commit message should be more precise and describe what the
> >underlying cause of the failure was. i.e. that the node is finding itself as 
> >the merge
> >candidate because we go forward, overwrite the pointers and the new
> >block's backward sibling is the original block which is where we end
> >up on teh second loop.  And vice versa if we go backwards first...
> >
> >Also, the "next node" is correctly termed a "sibling", and it's
> >either the forwards or backwards sibling, not the "next" sibling as
> >the direction of movement is important. So perhaps this
> >is better written as:
> >
> >"When a node is considered for a merge with a sibling, it overwrites
> >the sibling pointers of the original node with the sibling's
> >pointers. This leads to loop considering the original node as a
> >merge candidate with itself in the second pass, and so it
> >incorrectly determines a merge should occur."
> >
> 
> Are you done ranting? Get the @#$% bug patched.

/me rolls his eyes.

I gather this means you're not inclined to repost.  I'll add Dave's suggestions
to the commit header and move on.

Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>

Applied.

-Ben

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