Xue jiufei
2014-Mar-26 07:23 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: __ocfs2_mknod_locked should return error when ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks() failed
When ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks() return error, inode open lock may
not be obtainted for this inode. So other nodes can remove this file
and free dinode when inode still remain in memory on this node,
which is not correct and may trigger BUG. So __ocfs2_mknod_locked
should return error when ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks() failed.
Node_1 Node_2
create fileA, call ocfs2_mknod()
-> ocfs2_get_init_inode(), allocate inodeA
-> ocfs2_claim_new_inode(), claim dinode(dinodeA)
-> call ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks(),
create open lock failed, return error
-> __ocfs2_mknod_locked return success
unlink fileA
try open lock succeed,
and free dinodeA
create another file, call ocfs2_mknod()
-> ocfs2_get_init_inode(), allocate inodeB
-> ocfs2_claim_new_inode(), as Node_2 had freed dinodeA,
so claim dinodeA and update generation for dinodeA
call __ocfs2_drop_dl_inodes()->ocfs2_delete_inode()
to free inodeA, and finally triggers BUG
on(inode->i_generation != le32_to_cpu(fe->i_generation))
in function ocfs2_inode_lock_update().
Signed-off-by: joyce.xue <xuejiufei at huawei.com>
---
fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
index 3683643..63f9692 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
@@ -576,9 +576,6 @@ static int __ocfs2_mknod_locked(struct inode *dir,
mlog_errno(status);
}
- status = 0; /* error in ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks is not
- * critical */
-
leave:
if (status < 0) {
if (*new_fe_bh) {
--
1.8.4.3
Joel Becker
2014-Mar-27 04:28 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: __ocfs2_mknod_locked should return error when ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks() failed
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:23:13PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote:> When ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks() return error, inode open lock may > not be obtainted for this inode. So other nodes can remove this file > and free dinode when inode still remain in memory on this node, > which is not correct and may trigger BUG. So __ocfs2_mknod_locked > should return error when ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks() failed. > > Node_1 Node_2 > create fileA, call ocfs2_mknod() > -> ocfs2_get_init_inode(), allocate inodeA > -> ocfs2_claim_new_inode(), claim dinode(dinodeA) > -> call ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks(), > create open lock failed, return error > -> __ocfs2_mknod_locked return success > > unlink fileA > try open lock succeed, > and free dinodeA > > create another file, call ocfs2_mknod() > -> ocfs2_get_init_inode(), allocate inodeB > -> ocfs2_claim_new_inode(), as Node_2 had freed dinodeA, > so claim dinodeA and update generation for dinodeA > > call __ocfs2_drop_dl_inodes()->ocfs2_delete_inode() > to free inodeA, and finally triggers BUG > on(inode->i_generation != le32_to_cpu(fe->i_generation)) > in function ocfs2_inode_lock_update().Wow, that's a deep race, and it's some salty old code. I think I buy your description of the problem. I'm trying to figure out why we didn't hit this before. What workload or tests triggered this? Do you know why ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks() failed in the first place? I suspect it almost never fails, which is why we haven't seen this issue. Also, which cluster stack was involved? Finally, have you tested the result? I believe that the iput() machinery will do the right thing, but tests are better than my intuition. Joel> > Signed-off-by: joyce.xue <xuejiufei at huawei.com> > --- > fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > index 3683643..63f9692 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > @@ -576,9 +576,6 @@ static int __ocfs2_mknod_locked(struct inode *dir, > mlog_errno(status); > } > > - status = 0; /* error in ocfs2_create_new_inode_locks is not > - * critical */ > - > leave: > if (status < 0) { > if (*new_fe_bh) { > -- > 1.8.4.3 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-devel mailing list > Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com > https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel-- "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it's just the opposite." - John Kenneth Galbraith http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec at evilplan.org