Re: [PATCH] xfs: call xfs_idestroy_fork() in xfs_ilock() critical section

[Waiman Long]

On 04/22/2015 07:17 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> xfs: xfs_attr_inactive leaves inconsistent attr fork state behind
>
> From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> xfs_attr_inactive() is supposed to clean up the attribute fork when
> the inode is being freed. While it removes attribute fork extents,
> it completely ignores attributes in local format, which means that
> there can still be active attributes on the inode after
> xfs_attr_inactive() has run.
>
> This leads to problems with concurrent inode writeback - the in-core
> inode attribute fork is removed without locking on the assumption
> that nothing will be attempting to access the attribute fork after a
> call to xfs_attr_inactive() because it isn't supposed to exist on
> disk any more.
>
> To fix this, make xfs_attr_inactive() completely remove all traces
> of the attribute fork from the inode, regardless of it's state.
> Further, also remove the in-core attribute fork structure safely so
> that there is nothing further that needs to be done by callers to
> clean up the attribute fork. This means we can remove the in-core
> and on-disk attribute forks atomically.
>
> Also, on error simply remove the in-memory attribute fork. There's
> nothing that can be done with it once we have failed to remove the
> on-disk attribute fork, so we may as well just blow it away here
> anyway.
>
> cc:<stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  # 3.12 to 4.0
> Reported-by: Waiman Long<waiman.long@xxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c |  2 +-
>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.h |  2 +-
>   fs/xfs/xfs_attr_inactive.c    | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>   fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c            | 12 +++----
>   4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

Thanks for figuring out a better way to fix the underlying problem. I 
tested it in my test machine and it did fix the errors that I had seen 
in my test case.

Tested-by: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>

Cheers,
Longman

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/