[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxh5mZ8gCk1U=oV9b+j3k0RFcT3LozATfa3qHoYy+OMVsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:06:43 +0300
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
"stable [v4.9]" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhauser@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix O_TMPFILE corner case in ubifs_link()
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> Am 30.03.2017 um 13:57 schrieb Adrian Hunter:
>>> Reading deeper into the proved that I was wrong.
>>> AFAIKT UBIFS' journal has currently no way to revive a deleted inode.
>>> So, we have to think about a new solution.
>>
>> Deleting the orphan looks right. Just need to understand whether the
>> recovery would do the right thing - actually it looks like O_TMPFILE might
>> be OK and in other case we might be failing to remove nodes with sequence
>> numbers greater than the deletion inode.
>
> Sadly it does not the right thing.
> I'm currently investigating why and how to deal with it.
>
> I also managed to trigger that case. :(
>
Richard,
Were you able to make any progress? still working on this?
If this is too complicated to get in for this cycle, better send a patch
to disable O_TMPFILE support for ubifs and fix the problem properly on
followup merge cycle.
Because right now ubifs O_TMPFILE support is broken and breaks overlayfs mount.
Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists