Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933732AbdDFMJm (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:09:42 -0400 Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144]:44724 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751475AbdDFMJe (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:09:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix O_TMPFILE corner case in ubifs_link() To: Amir Goldstein References: <1490864181-2192-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <4c7a176b-6132-7936-a04f-d4def5e56320@nod.at> <646ae733-5037-3072-7151-b055a8fa1521@intel.com> Cc: Adrian Hunter , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel , Artem Bityutskiy , "stable [v4.9]" , Ralph Sennhauser From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <92bbb4d1-afe7-14f2-763b-051c7b12ff9e@nod.at> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:09:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1246 Lines: 33 Amir, Am 06.04.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Amir Goldstein: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Richard Weinberger 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. I have a test and currently testing it. As it looks the situation is less worse than I thought first. :-) Thanks, //richard