Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 14:47:19 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@gmx.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, kernel-team@android.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: get parent inode when recovering pino
Message-ID: <20200506064709.GA25482@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
References: <20200505153139.201697-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org>
 <20200505165847.GA98848@gmail.com>
 <20200505181323.GA55221@google.com>
 <20200505181941.GC98848@gmail.com>
 <20200506001403.GA2101@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
 <20200506012428.GG128280@sol.localdomain>
 <20200506015813.GA9256@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200506015813.GA9256@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:58:22AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 06:24:28PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:14:07AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I think this is wrong because the fsync can be done via =
a file
> > > > descriptor that was opened to a now-deleted link to the file.
> > >
> > > I'm still confused about this...
> > >
> > > I don't know what's wrong with this version from my limited knowledg=
e?
> > >  inode itself is locked when fsyncing, so
> > >
> > >    if the fsync inode->i_nlink =3D=3D 1, this inode has only one har=
d link
> > >    (not deleted yet) and should belong to a single directory; and
> > >
> > >    the only one parent directory would not go away (not deleted as w=
ell)
> > >    since there are some dirents in it (not empty).
> > >
> > > Could kindly explain more so I would learn more about this scenario?
> > > Thanks a lot!
> >
> > i_nlink =3D=3D 1 just means that there is one non-deleted link.  There=
 can be links
> > that have since been deleted, and file descriptors can still be open t=
o them.
>
> Thanks for your inspiration. You are right, thanks.
>
> Correct my words... I didn't check f2fs code just now, it seems f2fs doe=
sn't
> take inode_lock as some other fs like __generic_file_fsync or ubifs_fsyn=
c.
>
> And i_sem locks nlink / try_to_fix_pino similarly in some extent. It see=
ms
> no race by using d_find_alias here. Thanks again.
>

(think more little bit just now...)

 Thread 1:                                           Thread 2 (fsync):
  vfs_unlink                                          try_to_fix_pino
    f2fs_unlink
       f2fs_delete_entry
         f2fs_drop_nlink  (i_sem, inode->i_nlink =3D 1)

  (...   but this dentry still hashed)                  i_sem, check inode=
->i_nlink =3D 1
                                                        i_sem d_find_alias

  d_delete

I'm not sure if fsync could still use some wrong alias by chance..
completely untested, maybe just noise...

Thanks,
Gao Xiang