On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:36:58PM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
> If we fallocate(), without the keep size flag, into an area already covered
> by an extent previously fallocated, we were updating the inode's i_size but
> we weren't updating the inode item in the fs/subvol tree. A following umount
> + mount would result in a loss of the inode's size (and an fsync would miss
> too the fact that the inode changed).
>
> Reproducer:
>
> $ mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdd
> $ mount /dev/sdd /mnt
> $ fallocate -n -l 1M /mnt/foobar
> $ fallocate -l 512K /mnt/foobar
> $ umount /mnt
> $ mount /dev/sdd /mnt
> $ od -t x1 /mnt/foobar
> 0000000
>
> The expected result is:
>
> $ od -t x1 /mnt/foobar
> 0000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> *
> 2000000
>
> A test case for fstests follows soon.
>
> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/file.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> index 8f256b1..fb4bd79 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> @@ -2677,13 +2677,10 @@ static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int
> mode,
> 1 << inode->i_blkbits,
> offset + len,
> &alloc_hint);
> -
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - free_extent_map(em);
> - break;
> - }
> } else if (actual_end > inode->i_size &&
> !(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE)) {
> + struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
> +
> /*
> * We didn't need to allocate any more space, but we
> * still extended the size of the file so we need to
> @@ -2692,8 +2689,22 @@ static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int
> mode,
> inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
> i_size_write(inode, actual_end);
> btrfs_ordered_update_i_size(inode, actual_end, NULL);
> + /* 1 unit for inode item */
> + trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 1);
> + if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
I prefer putting this earlier, before i_size updates, to
protect us from another isize inconsistence(disk_i_size, isize vs isize in
inode_item).
Basically I mean,
...
trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 1);
if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
} else {
inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
...
}
> + } else {
> + ret = btrfs_update_inode(trans, root, inode);
> + if (ret)
> + btrfs_end_transaction(trans, root);
> + else
> + ret = btrfs_end_transaction(trans,
> + root);
calling same end_transaction() for two times seems kind of weird for me,
what about this?
ret2 = btrfs_end_transaction(trans, root);
if (!ret)
ret = ret2;
But anyway, I'm okay with both.
Thanks,
-liubo
> }
> free_extent_map(em);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + break;
>
> cur_offset = last_byte;
> if (cur_offset >= alloc_end) {
> --
> 2.1.3
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
