[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <843601c0-2c87-d848-c876-bef65bfc6d98@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:27:51 -0700
From: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...aro.org>
To: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG in ext4_ind_remove_space
On 3/6/22 21:45, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Just FYI - The change which we discussed to fix the max_block to max_end_block, is not correct.
> Since it will still leave 1 block at the end after punch operation, if the file has s_bitmap_maxbytes size.
> This is due to the fact that, "end" is expected to be 1 block after the end of last block.
>
> Will try look into it to see how can we fix this.
>
> 1210 /**
> 1211 * ext4_ind_remove_space - remove space from the range
> 1212 * @handle: JBD handle for this transaction
> 1213 * @inode: inode we are dealing with
> 1214 * @start: First block to remove
> 1215 * @end: One block after the last block to remove (exclusive)
> 1216 *
> 1217 * Free the blocks in the defined range (end is exclusive endpoint of
> 1218 * range). This is used by ext4_punch_hole().
> 1219 */
> 1220 int ext4_ind_remove_space(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
> 1221 ext4_lblk_t start, ext4_lblk_t end)
>
> -ritesh
Hi Ritesh,
I tried to bisect it and went as far back as 4.4 and the issue still triggers there.
I couldn't build anything older than that with my compiler, but I suspect that
the issue exists even before 3.0 where ext4_fallocate() has been introduced.
--
Thanks,
Tadeusz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists