Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: handle error case when adding xattr entry

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 10/18, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/18 0:41, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 10/17, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2017/10/17 7:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> This patch fixes recovering incomplete xattr entries remaining in inline xattr
> >>> and xattr block, caused by any kind of errors.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  fs/f2fs/xattr.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
> >>> index e74a4d7f744a..5a9c5e6ad714 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
> >>> @@ -389,10 +389,11 @@ static inline int write_all_xattrs(struct inode *inode, __u32 hsize,
> >>>  {
> >>>  	struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
> >>>  	size_t inline_size = inline_xattr_size(inode);
> >>> -	void *xattr_addr;
> >>> +	struct page *in_page = NULL;
> >>> +	void *xattr_addr, *inline_addr;
> >>>  	struct page *xpage;
> >>>  	nid_t new_nid = 0;
> >>> -	int err;
> >>> +	int err = 0;
> >>>  
> >>>  	if (hsize > inline_size && !F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid)
> >>>  		if (!alloc_nid(sbi, &new_nid))
> >>> @@ -400,30 +401,30 @@ static inline int write_all_xattrs(struct inode *inode, __u32 hsize,
> >>>  
> >>>  	/* write to inline xattr */
> >>>  	if (inline_size) {
> >>> -		struct page *page = NULL;
> >>> -		void *inline_addr;
> >>> -
> >>>  		if (ipage) {
> >>>  			inline_addr = inline_xattr_addr(inode, ipage);
> >>> -			f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(ipage, NODE, true);
> >>> -			set_page_dirty(ipage);
> >>>  		} else {
> >>> -			page = get_node_page(sbi, inode->i_ino);
> >>> -			if (IS_ERR(page)) {
> >>> +			in_page = get_node_page(sbi, inode->i_ino);
> >>> +			if (IS_ERR(in_page)) {
> >>>  				alloc_nid_failed(sbi, new_nid);
> >>> -				return PTR_ERR(page);
> >>> +				return PTR_ERR(in_page);
> >>>  			}
> >>> -			inline_addr = inline_xattr_addr(inode, page);
> >>> -			f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(page, NODE, true);
> >>> +			inline_addr = inline_xattr_addr(inode, in_page);
> >>>  		}
> >>> -		memcpy(inline_addr, txattr_addr, inline_size);
> >>> -		f2fs_put_page(page, 1);
> >>>  
> >>> +		f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(ipage ? ipage : in_page,
> >>> +							NODE, true);
> >>>  		/* no need to use xattr node block */
> >>>  		if (hsize <= inline_size) {
> >>>  			err = truncate_xattr_node(inode, ipage);
> >>
> >> truncate_xattr_node(inode, ipage ? ipage : in_page);
> > 
> > No, that should be ipage.
> 
> I just noted that dn.inode_page_locked in truncate_xattr_node will be set wrong,
> but, anyway, it looks that won't be problem because we didn't use inode_page_locked
> later.
> 
> There is no more users of ipage in truncate_xattr_node, so no matter we passing,
> there will be safe for us, right?

Oh, yes, like this?