[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:32:17 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] e2fsck: fix multiply-claimed block quota accounting
when deleting files
> On May 11, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> As e2fsck processes each file in pass1, the actual file system quota is
> increased by the number of blocks discovered in the file. This can
> include both non-multiply-claimed and multiply-claimed blocks, if the
> latter exist. However, if a file containing multiply-claimed blocks
> is then deleted in pass1b, those blocks are not taken into account when
> decreasing the actual quota. In this case, the new quota values written
> to the file system by e2fsck overstate the space actually consumed.
> And, e2fsck must be run twice on the file system to fully correct
> quota.
>
> Fix this by counting multiply-claimed blocks as a debit to quota when
> deleting files in pass1b.
>
> [V2] Correct a dangling else bug in the original patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
> ---
> e2fsck/pass1b.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1b.c b/e2fsck/pass1b.c
> index b40f026..d22cffd 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/pass1b.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/pass1b.c
> @@ -637,9 +637,11 @@ static int delete_file_block(ext2_filsys fs,
> if (ext2fs_test_block_bitmap2(ctx->block_dup_map, *block_nr)) {
> n = dict_lookup(&clstr_dict, INT_TO_VOIDPTR(c));
> if (n) {
> - p = (struct dup_cluster *) dnode_get(n);
> - if (lc != pb->cur_cluster)
> + if (lc != pb->cur_cluster) {
> + p = (struct dup_cluster *) dnode_get(n);
> decrement_badcount(ctx, *block_nr, p);
> + pb->dup_blocks++;
> + }
> } else
> com_err("delete_file_block", 0,
> _("internal error: can't find dup_blk for %llu\n"),
My preference would be to have {} around the else clause as well, and I
believe that checkpatch.pl agrees "braces {} should be used on all arms
of this statement". That said, this is a pre-existing condition and is
only code style, while your patch fixes a real bug.
Cheers, Andreas
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists