| Message ID | 20211112121758.2208727-5-chengzhihao1@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Some bugfixs for ubi/ubifs | expand |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 08:17:50PM +0800, Zhihao Cheng wrote: > whiteout inode should be put when do_tmpfile() failed if inode has been > initialized. Otherwise we will get following warning during umount: > UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1494): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS > assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth == 0, in fs/ubifs/super.c:1930 > VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of ubifs. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. > > Fixes: 9e0a1fff8db56ea ("ubifs: Implement RENAME_WHITEOUT") > Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> > --- > fs/ubifs/dir.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c > index 2735ad1affed..6503e6857f6e 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c > @@ -1334,6 +1334,8 @@ static int do_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, > > err = do_tmpfile(old_dir, old_dentry, S_IFCHR | WHITEOUT_MODE, &whiteout); > if (err) { > + if (whiteout) > + iput(whiteout); Should this rather be done in do_tmpfile() directly? Sascha
在 2021/11/15 16:24, Sascha Hauer 写道: Hi, Sascha > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 08:17:50PM +0800, Zhihao Cheng wrote: >> whiteout inode should be put when do_tmpfile() failed if inode has been >> initialized. Otherwise we will get following warning during umount: >> UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1494): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS >> assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth == 0, in fs/ubifs/super.c:1930 >> VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of ubifs. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. >> >> Fixes: 9e0a1fff8db56ea ("ubifs: Implement RENAME_WHITEOUT") >> Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/ubifs/dir.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c >> index 2735ad1affed..6503e6857f6e 100644 >> --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c >> +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c >> @@ -1334,6 +1334,8 @@ static int do_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >> >> err = do_tmpfile(old_dir, old_dentry, S_IFCHR | WHITEOUT_MODE, &whiteout); >> if (err) { >> + if (whiteout) >> + iput(whiteout); > Should this rather be done in do_tmpfile() directly? Yes, I should have done it. Although next patch reconstructs do_rename() which makes this ugly judgement disappered. I will fix it along with other suggestions from other patches in next iteration. Thanks. > Sascha >
在 2021/11/15 16:24, Sascha Hauer 写道: Hi Sascha, >> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c >> index 2735ad1affed..6503e6857f6e 100644 >> --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c >> +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c >> @@ -1334,6 +1334,8 @@ static int do_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, >> >> err = do_tmpfile(old_dir, old_dentry, S_IFCHR | WHITEOUT_MODE, &whiteout); >> if (err) { >> + if (whiteout) >> + iput(whiteout); > > Should this rather be done in do_tmpfile() directly? Yes, I should have done it. Although next patch reconstructs do_rename() which makes this ugly judgement disappered. I will fix it along with other suggestions from other patches in next iteration. Thanks. > Sascha >
diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index 2735ad1affed..6503e6857f6e 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -1334,6 +1334,8 @@ static int do_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry, err = do_tmpfile(old_dir, old_dentry, S_IFCHR | WHITEOUT_MODE, &whiteout); if (err) { + if (whiteout) + iput(whiteout); kfree(dev); goto out_release; }
whiteout inode should be put when do_tmpfile() failed if inode has been initialized. Otherwise we will get following warning during umount: UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1494): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth == 0, in fs/ubifs/super.c:1930 VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of ubifs. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Fixes: 9e0a1fff8db56ea ("ubifs: Implement RENAME_WHITEOUT") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> --- fs/ubifs/dir.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)