On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 10:43, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:39:41AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Debugging reiserfs problem that can be demonstrated with script created by
> > > Zygo Blaxell, I started to wonder if the problem presented is indeed reiserfs
> > > fault and not VFS.
> > > Though the Zygo claims script only produces problems on reiserfs, I am trying
> > > it now myself on ext2 (which will take some time).
> > >
> > > Debugging shows that reiserfs_link is sometimes called for inodes whose
> > > i_nlink is zero (and all corresponding data is deleted already).
> > > So my current guess of what's going on is this:
> > No, this is a reiserfs bug, since we schedule after doing link checks in
> > reiserfs_link and reiserfs_unlink. I sent a patch to reiserfs dev a
> > while ago, I'll pull it out of the suse kernel and rediff against
> > 2.4.20.
> Yes we do.
> But on the other hand I've put a check at the beginning of reiserfs_link
> and I am still seeing these links on inodes with i_nlink == 0.
That's because we don't inc the link count in reiserfs_link before we
schedule. The bug works a little like this:
link count at 1
reiserfs_link: make new directory entry for link, schedule()
reiserfs_unlink: dec link count to zero, remove file stat data
reiserfs_link: inc link count, return thinking the stat data is still
All of which leads to expanding chaos as we process this link pointing
to nowhere but still have a valid in ram inode pointing to it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:13 EST