Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4 inode destroy

From	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4 inode destroy
Date	2017-01-12 18:10 +0100
Message-ID	<sYR2W-6Ch-31@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <sW1UR-2ik-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sW3jY-37n-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <sYn4R-52M-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <sYtah-an-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sYICm-1zl-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:00:16PM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
> 
> At the same time, I think other file systems may have the same problem, do
> you think we should put these detections on the VFS layer? Thus other file
> systems no need to do the same things, but the disadvantage is that we can
> not call ext4_error to report ext4 inconsistency.

There are file systems which don't have inodes per-se where the
i_nlinks could be a something which is simulated by the file system.
So it's not *necessarily* an on-disk inconsistency.

We'll have to see if Al and other file system developers are
agreeable, but one thing that we could do is to do the detection in
the VFS layer (which it is actually easier to do), and if they find an
issue, they can just pass a report via a callback function found in
the struct_operations structure.  If there isn't such a function
defined, or the function returns 0, the VFS could just do nothing; if
it returns an error code, then that would get reflected back up to
userspace, plus whatever other action the file system sees fit to do.

	   		       	      	  - Ted

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com> - 2017-01-04 10:00 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4 inode destroy Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> - 2017-01-04 23:10 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> - 2017-01-05 00:00 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2017-01-05 00:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com> - 2017-01-05 08:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> - 2017-01-05 19:50 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com> - 2017-01-11 10:10 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2017-01-11 16:40 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com> - 2017-01-12 09:10 +0100
            Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2017-01-12 18:10 +0100
              Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 04:50 +0100
                Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2017-01-13 15:30 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: increase the protection of drop nlink and ext4  inode destroy "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com> - 2017-01-16 04:30 +0100

csiph-web