Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 6/6] f2fs: set I_LINKABLE early to avoid wrong access by vfs

From: Chao Yu
Date: Tue Dec 10 2019 - 01:38:02 EST


On 2019/12/10 6:23, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This patch moves setting I_LINKABLE early in rename2(whiteout) to avoid the
> below warning.
>
> [ 3189.163385] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 59523 at fs/inode.c:358 inc_nlink+0x32/0x40
> [ 3189.246979] Call Trace:
> [ 3189.248707] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x2d6/0x440 [f2fs]
> [ 3189.251399] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x162/0x8c0 [f2fs]
> [ 3189.254010] f2fs_add_dentry+0x69/0xe0 [f2fs]
> [ 3189.256353] f2fs_do_add_link+0xc5/0x100 [f2fs]
> [ 3189.258774] f2fs_rename2+0xabf/0x1010 [f2fs]
> [ 3189.261079] vfs_rename+0x3f8/0xaa0
> [ 3189.263056] ? tomoyo_path_rename+0x44/0x60
> [ 3189.265283] ? do_renameat2+0x49b/0x550
> [ 3189.267324] do_renameat2+0x49b/0x550
> [ 3189.269316] __x64_sys_renameat2+0x20/0x30
> [ 3189.271441] do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x230
> [ 3189.273410] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> [ 3189.275848] RIP: 0033:0x7f270b4d9a49
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/namei.c | 27 +++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
> index a1c507b0b4ac..5d9584281935 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
> @@ -797,6 +797,7 @@ static int __f2fs_tmpfile(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>
> if (whiteout) {
> f2fs_i_links_write(inode, false);
> + inode->i_state |= I_LINKABLE;
> *whiteout = inode;
> } else {
> d_tmpfile(dentry, inode);
> @@ -867,6 +868,12 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> F2FS_I(old_dentry->d_inode)->i_projid)))
> return -EXDEV;
>
> + if (flags & RENAME_WHITEOUT) {
> + err = f2fs_create_whiteout(old_dir, &whiteout);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> + }

To record quota info correctly, we need to create whiteout inode after
dquot_initialize(old_dir)?

> +
> err = dquot_initialize(old_dir);
> if (err)
> goto out;
> @@ -898,17 +905,11 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> }
> }
>
> - if (flags & RENAME_WHITEOUT) {
> - err = f2fs_create_whiteout(old_dir, &whiteout);
> - if (err)
> - goto out_dir;
> - }
> -
> if (new_inode) {
>
> err = -ENOTEMPTY;
> if (old_dir_entry && !f2fs_empty_dir(new_inode))
> - goto out_whiteout;
> + goto out_dir;
>
> err = -ENOENT;
> new_entry = f2fs_find_entry(new_dir, &new_dentry->d_name,
> @@ -916,7 +917,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> if (!new_entry) {
> if (IS_ERR(new_page))
> err = PTR_ERR(new_page);
> - goto out_whiteout;
> + goto out_dir;
> }
>
> f2fs_balance_fs(sbi, true);
> @@ -948,7 +949,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> err = f2fs_add_link(new_dentry, old_inode);
> if (err) {
> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> - goto out_whiteout;
> + goto out_dir;
> }
>
> if (old_dir_entry)
> @@ -972,7 +973,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> if (IS_ERR(old_page))
> err = PTR_ERR(old_page);
> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> - goto out_whiteout;
> + goto out_dir;
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -991,7 +992,6 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> f2fs_delete_entry(old_entry, old_page, old_dir, NULL);
>
> if (whiteout) {
> - whiteout->i_state |= I_LINKABLE;
> set_inode_flag(whiteout, FI_INC_LINK);
> err = f2fs_add_link(old_dentry, whiteout);

[ 3189.256353] f2fs_do_add_link+0xc5/0x100 [f2fs]
[ 3189.258774] f2fs_rename2+0xabf/0x1010 [f2fs]

Does the call stack point here? if so, we have set I_LINKABLE before
f2fs_add_link(), why the warning still be triggered?

Thanks,

> if (err)
> @@ -1027,15 +1027,14 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> if (new_page)
> f2fs_put_page(new_page, 0);
> -out_whiteout:
> - if (whiteout)
> - iput(whiteout);
> out_dir:
> if (old_dir_entry)
> f2fs_put_page(old_dir_page, 0);
> out_old:
> f2fs_put_page(old_page, 0);
> out:
> + if (whiteout)
> + iput(whiteout);
> return err;
> }
>
>