Hi Joseph, On 2017/12/26 14:59, Joseph Qi wrote: > > > On 17/12/26 14:45, piaojun wrote: >> Hi Joseph, >> >> On 2017/12/26 14:10, Joseph Qi wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 17/12/26 13:35, piaojun wrote: >>>> Hi Joseph, >>>> >>>> On 2017/12/26 11:05, Joseph Qi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17/12/26 10:11, piaojun wrote: >>>>>> If metadata is corrupted such as 'invalid inode block', we will get >>>>>> failed by calling 'mount()' as below: >>>>>> >>>>>> ocfs2_mount >>>>>> ocfs2_initialize_super >>>>>> ocfs2_init_global_system_inodes : return -EINVAL if inode is NULL >>>>>> ocfs2_get_system_file_inode >>>>>> _ocfs2_get_system_file_inode : return NULL if inode is errno >>>>> Do you mean inode is bad? >>>>> >>>> Here we have to face two abnormal cases: >>>> 1. inode is bad; >>>> 2. read inode from disk failed due to bad storage link. >>>>>> ocfs2_iget >>>>>> ocfs2_read_locked_inode >>>>>> ocfs2_validate_inode_block >>>>>> >>>>>> In this situation we need return -EROFS to upper application, so that >>>>>> user can fix it by fsck. And then mount again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <piao...@huawei.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alex Chen <alex.c...@huawei.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> fs/ocfs2/super.c | 10 ++++++++-- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/super.c b/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>>>>> index 040bbb6..dea21a7 100644 >>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>>>>> @@ -474,7 +474,10 @@ static int ocfs2_init_global_system_inodes(struct >>>>>> ocfs2_super *osb) >>>>>> new = ocfs2_get_system_file_inode(osb, i, >>>>>> osb->slot_num); >>>>>> if (!new) { >>>>>> ocfs2_release_system_inodes(osb); >>>>>> - status = -EINVAL; >>>>>> + if (ocfs2_is_soft_readonly(osb)) >>>>> I'm afraid that having bad inode doesn't means ocfs2 is readonly. >>>>> And the calling application is mount.ocfs2. So do you mean mount.ocfs2 >>>>> have to handle EROFS like printing corresponding error log? >>>>> >>>> I agree that 'bad inode' also means other abnormal cases like >>>> 'bad storage link' or 'no memory', but we can distinguish that by >>>> ocfs2_is_soft_readonly(). I found that 'mount.ocfs2' did not >>>> distinguish any error type and just return 1 for all error cases. I >>>> wonder if we should return the exact errno for users? >>>> Soft readonly is an in-memory status. The case you described is just >>> trying to read inode and then check if it is bad. So where to set the >>> status before? >>> >> we set readonly status in the following process: >> ocfs2_validate_inode_block() >> ocfs2_error >> ocfs2_handle_error >> ocfs2_set_ro_flag(osb, 0); >> >> I have a suggestion that we could distinguish readonly status in >> 'mount.ocfs2', and return -EROFS to users so that they can fix it. > IC. Please update this information to patch description as well. > And suggest just use ternary operator instead of if/else. > BTW, so mount.ocfs2 should be updated correspondingly, right? > > Thanks, > Joseph
Thanks for your advices, and I will post a patch for mount.ocfs2 correspondingly. >>>> thanks, >>>> Jun >>>> >>>>>> + status = -EROFS; >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + status = -EINVAL; >>>>>> mlog_errno(status); >>>>>> /* FIXME: Should ERROR_RO_FS */ >>>>>> mlog(ML_ERROR, "Unable to load system inode %d, >>>>>> " >>>>>> @@ -505,7 +508,10 @@ static int ocfs2_init_local_system_inodes(struct >>>>>> ocfs2_super *osb) >>>>>> new = ocfs2_get_system_file_inode(osb, i, >>>>>> osb->slot_num); >>>>>> if (!new) { >>>>>> ocfs2_release_system_inodes(osb); >>>>>> - status = -EINVAL; >>>>>> + if (ocfs2_is_soft_readonly(osb)) >>>>>> + status = -EROFS; >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + status = -EINVAL; >>>>>> mlog(ML_ERROR, "status=%d, sysfile=%d, >>>>>> slot=%d\n", >>>>>> status, i, osb->slot_num); >>>>>> goto bail; >>>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>> . >>> > . > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel