[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bug-196405-13602-tQb57To7MO@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:22:37 +0000
From: bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To: linux-ext4@...nel.org
Subject: [Bug 196405] mkdir mishandles st_nlink in ext4 directory with 64997
subdirectories
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196405
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Dilger (adilger.kernelbugzilla@...ger.ca) ---
One unfortunate situation is that "getconf LINK_MAX" is invented by glibc based
on the fstype reported by statfs() and not actually extracted from the kernel.
That makes LINK_MAX accurate only in a subset of cases, depending on the
version of ext2/ext3/ext4 in use and filesystem features enabled, and it
definitely isn't reporting values from the filesystem on a mount-by-mount
basis. I ran into this problem in the past when running the POSIX test suite
for Lustre, and consider LINK_MAX to be the minimum number of subdirectories
that can be created in a directory, rather than the maximum.
Checking the ext4 code, it is returning -EMLINK for ext4_link() on regular
files and for ext4_mkdir() for subdirectories, and has been since before it was
forked from ext3. I'm not sure where your ENOSPC is coming from. I found an
old RHEL6 system that didn't have dir_nlink set to test this, but the feature
was enabled once the directory passed ~65000 subdirs, so I didn't get an error.
I did try testing on a small newly created ext4 filesystem with 1024-byte
blocks (in case the limit was with the 2-level htree), and hit ENOSPC because I
ran out of inodes... 32757 has never been a directory limit imposed by
ext2/3/4, so I suspect you hit a similar problem (11 inodes are reserved by
ext* for internal use).
As for wrap-around at 65000 vs. 65001 links, I can agree that is a minor bug
that could be fixed. Strangely, in continued testing on my old RHEL6 box (with
a larger filesystem and dir_nlink disabled) I was able to successfully create
64998 subdirectories, and ls -l reported 65000 links on the parent directory,
so it may be that the 64998 overflow is a problem that was added after the
dir_nlink feature was first created.
The most important issue is that nlinks=1 on the directory causing fts() to
miss entries during scanning. It doesn't make sense for it to take nlinks=1
and subtract 2 links for "." and ".." and expect to find "-1" subdirectories.
It may be that this causes an unsigned underflow and tools like "find" will not
stop scanning until they hit 2^32-1 entries or similar? At least in my tests
"find" correctly found the "needle" files even if fts-test.c did not.
Also worthy of note, on my Mac (OSX 10.12.5, HFS+ Journaled fs), running
fts-test.c with 65536 subdirectories has "ls -ld d" reporting 0 links, but
fts-test.c still passes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists